The month of May brought some very positive changes for Nepal. With the first round of local elections successfully held after almost 20 years, there is fresh hope and jubilation in people. Political parties have also generally accepted the results. Upholding people’s choices in this way is indeed a mature gesture from our political leaders. New challenges now lie ahead. Representative local governments shall be a novelty in the country, and flexing responsibility by those newly elected will come with its own set of learning curves. Similarly, growth rebounded to a two-decade high of 7.5%, albeit with many exogenous factors. Sustaining this growth is also another challenge for us. Our researcher has identified a number of fundamental pillars to create a conducive environment for sustaining this economic growth. A recent World Bank report also stresses that Nepal needs to seriously reform its policies and create more room for competition in order to sustain growth. Our commentaries on the need to remodel public education system, and malpractices committed by the petroleum sector monopoly further highlight this need to ensure competition. We are happy to see that idea of strategic partnership between Nepal Airlines Corporation (NAC) and Lufthansa, which our study also advocates as a necessary reform for making the NAC more competitive in the market, is gaining ground. Along this line, instatement of local governments within the new federal constitutional provisions lays down genuine reasons to be optimistic about inter-local government competition. The recently-unveiled fiscal budget (unlike past years) does not specify any new programs; however, it does give considerable financial responsibilities to local governments. Now that human capital is going to one of the greatest resources for any local jurisdiction, it will be particularly interesting to see what kinds of economic policies these local governments will adopt to retain and …
The ambush of African philosophy: an exhumation of classical liberal principles in the evolution of Africa societies
Author: Ibraham B. Anoba Full paper available at the author’s webpage, here. Abstract The persistent resentment towards classical liberal principles especially individualism and free market in contemporary Africa, represents an outcome of decades of ambush against the ideology despite its clear connections with traditional African philosophy and relevance to the prosperity of modern African states. This work attempts to draw comparisons between social and economic organisation in traditional Africa and classical liberal principles. Contrary to literatures that portray the community as the real and only end in traditional African societies, elements like free trade; market economy; consensus; anarchy and limited governance negates this position. While tracing the cause of Africa’s cling to socialism and communism, this paper presents an ideological transition from pre-colonialism to nationalist and post-independent Africa. It concludes by demystifying the arguments of individualism as antithetical to African morality. It also justified the inevitability of classical liberal principles in modern Africa. Key words: Classical Liberalism; African Humanism; Ubuntu; Individualism; African Morality; Free Market INTRODUCTION There is rarely a fiercely contested ideology in Africa as classical liberalism – often relegated to capitalism. The annihilation of the African academia by radical-socialists and Marxian philosophers since the 20th century greatly influenced the presentation of the origins of African life as purely socialist. Whereas, later inquiries revealed philosophical patterns that correlates with classical liberalism and other ideas. They also debunked the universality of communalism and social welfarism in traditional Africa. Although, the social and economic structures in some traditional African communities were communally designed, only because communalism was seen as the formal and best means for societal organization based on factors like population, kinship, and tribal solidarity. On a broader spectrum, qualities like respect for individual happiness, personal interest and dignity were equally permitted. And in numerous communities as would be later revealed, …
Trump should end the Federal Reserve to save American jobs
President Donald Trump has blamed countries overseas for, “Stealing our jobs,” but in reality, it’s inflation caused by the Federal Reserve that has been causing the loss of American jobs. Ever since the Federal Reserve began printing money on a massive scale in the 1970s, the American economy has suffered the effects of inflation. This caused American wages to rise, which led to companies moving their jobs overseas to find cheaper labor. Americans upset about losing their jobs will probably find no relief from President Trump, who recently said he would increase spending on a massive scale for infrastructure and the military. Presumably, these increases would be paid for by printing even more money, which would lead to more inflation, and perhaps even more outsourcing. Although Donald Trump gave lip service to auditing the Federal Reserve during the campaign, he has made little mention of the FED since taking office. But the ability to print money will likely be too tempting for President Trump to pass up, as it has been for almost all American presidents. Instead, President Trump has embarked on clueless protectionist policies like tariffs, trade wars and publicly singling out companies to keep American jobs in the country. These “solutions” will only make the pain worse for American families, who will pay the higher prices. America is not the only nation to inflate it’s money supply, but the effect of the higher prices for wages has led to a mass migration of jobs out of the country, to countries where wages and costs of doing business are lower. Of course, the Federal Reserve is not the sole reason that jobs are leaving America, but it is one of many. In addition to monetary inflation, there are the costs of state and federal taxes and regulations that cause employers to flee the US. If President Trump really wanted to bring …
Can economists predict the future?
I can make a prediction that will almost definitely come true: On July 28th, 2061, a bright comet will appear in the night sky. Of course, this is not my prediction, but Edmond Halley’s — which is where the name Halley’s comet comes from. Unfortunately, Halley died before he could view Halley’s comet for himself, but he is proven correct every 76 years. In a similar way, the economist Ludwig von Mises predicted the collapse of socialism. He also died before he could view the collapse of the socialist economies of his time, but he has been proven correct again and again. How did Mises and Halley know such bold things about the future? And how can we use their insight to make our own predictions about the future? The answer has less to do with mathematics, and more to do with simple logic. For Halley, he deduced that a comet going around the sun would be seen again in the future, and he was correct. But for Mises, the problem was a bit more complex, because there was no bright object in the sky for him to look at. Mises understood the many problems with socialism, and the inevitable collapse of such a system. He wrote about his findings in, “Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth“. In this landmark essay, Mises proved that socialism could not work because the price system was broken. In a purely socialist system, prices are made up by bureaucrats, and this causes all kinds of chaos. Without real prices, no one has any clue how much anything really costs. When this happens, the entire system collapses. Mises and Halley predicted the future, but in reality, they were explaining a phenomenon, like a law of nature. Just like Albert Einstein predicted the existence of black holes, …
Liberals embrace gun ownership now that Trump is President
Liberals in the US are beginning to embrace gun ownership now that Trump is President. BBC News reported that liberal gun purchases may be rising, and liberal gun clubs are seeing a big boost in membership. Some liberals say they are buying guns to defend themselves against potential tyranny from the Trump administration. Gwendolyn Patton, a member of Pink Pistols, a club for gay, lesbian and transgender gun owners, told the BBC, “There are people who have professed to carrying a gun now because Trump made them feel unsafe . . . I think their fears are groundless but I can’t make them not be afraid, so whatever they need to do to feel safer, I don’t have a problem as long as they do it responsibly.” The change in attitude is a stark contrast to liberal views about gun ownership during the Obama years, when CNN host Piers Morgan scored high ratings calling for a ban on assault rifles. In 2013, Piers Morgan asked Ben Shapiro, “Why do they need those weapons?” Ben answered, “They need them for the prospective possibility of resistance to tyranny.” Piers asked, “Where do you expect the tyranny to come from?” Ben answered, “The tyranny would come from the government.” Piers asked, “Barack Obama’s government?” Yes, back then, it was almost impossible for liberals to imagine why anyone would be afraid of Barack Obama’s government. But now that Donald Trump will be president, many people see him and his administration as tyrannical. So will liberals become more pro 2nd amendment? For some people, the tyranny may not be so far fetched, as Trump said that he would deport 3 million undocumented immigrants after his inauguration. Some liberals may wish to defend against this — perhaps even with a gun, or an AR-15 rifle. For some people, …
A Critique of Hans-Hermann Hoppe: Monarchy vs Democracy
Which is better, a monarchy or a democracy? According to economist Hans-Hermann Hoppe, both are not good, but a monarchies probably do less harm than a democracies. In his book, “Democracy: The God that Failed,” Hoppe wrote that a monarchy is like a private government, and a democracy is like a public government. In that sense, the monarchies benefit from the advantages of private property, and have a higher incentive to invest in the long-term value of the country. However, Jacek Sierpinski argued that there may be flaws in this theory. In his paper titled, “A Critique of Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s Thesis on Lesser Harmfulness of Monarchy than Democracy,” Sierpinski examined data which shows that monarchies may not be much better for citizens after all. Jacek Sierpinski’s paper has been posted below, along with Mr. Sierpinski’s introduction. The paper has been translated from Polish. Abstract The aim of this paper is to critically analyse the thesis of Hans-Herman Hoppe that although any government – taken as a territorial monopolist in the field of jurisdiction and tax imposition – is an organisation harmful both from the economic and ethical point of view since it violates property rights in an institutionalized and legal manner, exploiting private owners and contributing to the process of “decivilization,” yet the monarchy is less harmful than any democratic state. The ultimate point is to prove that Hoppe’s assumption on lower time preference of the governing monarch is not sufficient to conclude that monarchy is less responsible for violating property rights and that it contributes to the process of “decivilization” less than democracy. Introduction: Hoppe on monarchy and democracy In his works, Hans-Hermann Hoppe presents the thesis that any government – regarded as a territorial monopolist in the field of jurisdiction and tax imposition – is an organisation harmful both from …
Why are we still in Afghanistan?
As a young soldier in Afghanistan, I remember asking a superior why we didn’t venture into certain areas. Surprisingly, he said that those areas were controlled by the Taliban. But wasn’t that the reason we were there, to get rid of them? “No. Our job is to clear the roads of IED’s.” But won’t they just make more? “Yep,” he replied. His response reflected the thinking that goes behind many US foreign policy decisions. Even though there is no point to any of this, we can’t stop now because this is what we were tasked with. The decision has already been made and it isn’t our place to question orders. A few weeks later we lost two soldiers clearing a route that is no longer in use. In other words, they died for nothing. That’s a very hard thing for many people to accept, particularly soldiers and those who have lost loved ones. Nobody wants to believe that their husbands, fathers, brothers, and sisters died in vain. We have to believe that there is some greater purpose which justifies this tragedy. Sadly, there isn’t one. It’s a hard pill to swallow, but it is the cold, hard truth. We rationalize our losses by telling ourselves that they died “protecting America.” My friend was a “hero” who died “fighting for freedom.” On top of that, we’re all heroes, apparently, just for being in the military. It’s a comforting lie that we tell ourselves to avoid a very inconvenient truth, which is that I’m not a hero, and your freedom isn’t in Afghanistan. To admit the truth is to admit that there is no point and that people are dying for no reason (much like in Vietnam, which some people still can’t accept). Who wants to tell the family of a soldier …
You can tell a lot about a person by how they view libertarians
As a libertarian, I’ve noticed something about my friends. Often, the way people view me says more about them than it does about me. For example, it’s a pretty good bet that if someone calls me a, “right-winger,” they are most likely a left-winger. Likewise, the only people who call me a, “left-winger,” are usually right-wingers. People who automatically think I’m an anarchist are usually people who love big government. And people who think I’m not anarchist enough — well only anarchists would ever say that. Whenever people tell me that I read too many books, I automatically assume they don’t read many books at all. And people who think I’m naive usually put way too much trust in government. People who believe that my views are too cold and unfeeling are usually the type of people who form their worldview based on emotion. People who say libertarians just, “want to smoke pot all day,” are usually quite tolerant of the government breaking into people’s homes and throwing them in jail over a trace of weed. People who say libertarians don’t care about the environment are usually the kind of people who put the environment above every other issue in the world no matter what. The fact that I am even writing this politically incorrect sentence probably gives fodder to attack me for suggesting that there may be a better way to think about environmentalism. Speaking of which, people who think I should be more politically correct are usually too politically correct. And whenever people assume I don’t care about the poor, I usually assume they do not give much money to charity. After all, if people believe the government is taking care of the poor, why should they contribute anything? People who think I obsess too much about liberty …
Limited Government VS Voluntaryism
The debate between “limited government” and “no government” advocates has been going on for decades. On March 1st, 2016, Jacob Hornberger, founder and president of the Future of Freedom Foundation, published an article titled Why I Favor Limited Government. The article was the first in a six-part series which detailed why Mr. Hornberger favored a limited government over no government at all. Lou Carabini, founder of Monex Precious Metals and a writer at Mises.org, wrote a response to Mr. Hornberger’s article, which defends the “no government” or anarcho-capitalist (also known as voluntaryist) position. Lou’s point by point response to Jacob’s article has been published below, along with an introductory letter. Lou’s response is in blue. May 5, 2016 Dear Jacob, Your article “Why I Favor Limited Government” has given me an opportunity to think about and respond to several of your arguments. My comments are in italics (blue) and address your abbreviated statement that precedes each of my responses. Please accept my responses with all due respect. Lou Carabini, (LEC) Why I Favor Limited Government, Part 1 by Jacob G. Hornberger (JGH)-March 2016 issue Future of Freedom Lou Carabini (LEC): If by your title you mean that you prefer or favor someone to govern you, while not prohibiting others from volitionally choosing to be governed by someone else or themselves, then you’re simply expressing a preference and minding your own life, leaving others like myself to mind ours. Such a preference is a very libertarian and humane posture. This would be very much the same as the hundreds of preferences we express every day in matters of commerce and personal affairs with nary a thought that our preferences should in anyway prohibit others from expressing and realizing theirs. Such a posture recognizes the sacrosanctity of the lives of your fellow man …
Can This Event Save Your Life? “Secrets to Preventing and Treating Disease in the Ever-Changing U.S. Health Care Landscape” LI’s One-Day Conference in Austin, TX March 11th 2017
Without your health, it’s tough to live a happy, fulfilled life. With the changes in Obamacare, soaring pharmaceutical prices, and the regulatory pressures that favor treatment over prevention, our health is at risk. This one-day program will inform you of little known changes in recent legislation and scientific knowledge that can help you not only survive, but thrive. John Mackey, founder of Whole Foods and Conscious Capitalism, will share his ideas on nutrition, supplements, and other aspects of healthy living. He’ll help you take responsibility for your part in keeping your body “whole.” Starlee Coleman from the Goldwater Institute will be sharing the exciting new Right to Try legislation sweeping the nation state by state. Right to Try allows the terminally ill to bypass the FDA for access to cutting edge therapies. If you or your loved ones are threatened by a deadly disease, it may help you get tomorrow’s cures today! Sally Pipes from the Pacific Research Institute will be updating us on the negative impact of Obamacare, an update on its repeal and replacement following Trump’s presidential victory. She will discuss her plan on the best way to achieve affordable, accessible, quality care for all Americans, and some workarounds to get you and your loved ones the best health care possible. This information could save you money and your life! Dr. Mary Ruwart shares her experience with the FDA, how it keeps life-saving information and medications from the American public, and how to find out where to go to get them. Some tests are even available right here in the U.S.—like blood tests for detecting cancer before scans can even see it—but your family doctor probably doesn’t even know about them. Dr. Kyle Varner will share his experiences and tips for finding quality medical …
- Page 1 of 2
- 1
- 2