http://www.fnf.org.ph/downloadables/Reflection-of-a-former-Marxist.ppt.pdf
I want to feature this article by a Filipino author who criticizes Marx and promotes Libertarian policies. I am glad that Libertarian organizations exist in our country. Perhaps, there is still hope for our country after all.
Other papers by the same author can be found in his website: http://minimalgovernment.net/
The Mises Intitute websites always have a quotable Mies section where good quotes from Ludwig von Mises appear. I like it, and these entries will feature excerpts from works of Mises that I liked. For a start, I will post two versions of the same quotes from his Memoirs.
The quote also reflects my realization on the virtue of Capitalism:
"My first doubts about the excellence of interventionism came to me when, in my fifth semester, Professor Philippovich induced me to research housing conditions and when, in the following semester in the Seminar on Criminal Law, Professor Loffler asked me to research the changes in law regarding domestic servants, who at the time were still subject to corporal punishment by their employers. It then dawned on me that all real improvements in the conditions of the working classes were the result of capitalism; and that social laws frequently brought about the very opposite of what the legislation was intended to achieve.
"It was only after further study of economics that the true nature of interventionism was revealed to me."
*******
It was during my fifth semester at the university that I first began
to entertain doubts concerning the supremacy of interventionism.
Professor Philippovich assigned me to do an investigation of
housing conditions. The following semester, Professor Löffler,
in his seminar on criminal law, asked me to research changes in
law affecting domestic servants, who at the time were still subject
to the corporal punishment of their employers. It became
obvious to me that any improvement in the plight of the working classes was a result of capitalism,
and that the outcome of social legislation
often ran opposite to the intentions of its authors.
It was the study of political economy, however, that led me to
an understanding of the true nature of interventionism.
This is regarding the recent development in the drama May Bukas Pa. Catholic priest Fr. Jose heard from the devotee's confession that her husband will kidnap Santino. Afterwards, he decided to inform the police notwithstanding the vow of secrecy in confessions.
While it would be easy for me to dismiss the Roman Catholic Church institution of confession as absurd due to a misinterpretation of a passage in the General Epistle of St. James, I will not do that here. Many Protestant writers and theologians have discussed this at length and this is outside of the point I want to make.
A moral dilemma took place in the mind of Fr. Jose. Is it right to protect Santino if this would mean violation of his priestly duties? or should he respect the vow of privacy and hope for the protection of Bro? This is philosophy at work, isn't it?
Here's my take. Sure, the woman had the right for privacy and non-disclosure. But Santino has a right also. While a Liberal society emphasizes the rights of individuals, in no way does this give anyone to abuse or use one's right at the expense of another's. In this case, Santino's right to Life was threatened.
Therefore, Fr. Jose did the right thing, and he must not be ashamed about it.
A few days ago, I have announced my intention to present a series of critique articles regarding Hyperwage Theory. As much as I want to do it as soon as possible, I cannot. I'm busy with stuff like a paper on "The Comprachicos" and some other stuff, not to mention some exams. However, I also discovered that there are areas that I also need to research in order to present in a more beautiful manner my critique. I find Hyperwage Theory problematic, but I think other non-economic spheres are worth taking a look at. There areas include social psychology, philosophy notably epistemology and so on.
I plan to using the view point of Austrian Economics, but I find a blog that utilizes well mainstream economics in his critique of hyperwage. Please visit the following link, it's well written. http://b-lightblog.blogspot.com/
If you are breathing in the halls of the University of the Philippines, especially in the Diliman Campus, it is inevitable that you will meet the activists calling for greater state subsidy of UP Education. The trend in this decade is a continuous cut in the budget for UP. If we factor inflation into the picture, indeed, there should be an increase in the nominal budget of UP. Maintaining the facilities of the University is getting more expensive each year.
While the school Administration has always expressed that it desires greater state subsidy, it cannot ignore the fact that to wait for the government to act is an act of futility while the facilities further deteriorate. This has led to the great Tuition and Other Fees Increase last 2007, which affected students admitted to the University from 2007 onwards. In addition, the University of the Philippines is trying to lure the private sector in joint ventures as part of its revenue generating scheme. Examples of which are the UP-Ayala Technohub and the currently being constructed Toyota Center.
The leftist elements have condemned these acts as "commercialization of education" and "state abandonment of education." Other groups disagree, and I'm not going to argue here that it is false to think that UP education is being commercialize and that it is also untrue that the state has abandoned its subsidy for UP, for others have already argued much more clearly.
Bu so far, no one as far as I know has asked much radical questions in defense of UP being much more autonomous in generating funds. Perhaps, there should be no state schools in the first place. Leftist groups represented in particular by STAND-UP have argued that since UP is a state university, it is a contradiction in terms to think that UP would imitate a private university's strategy of raising funds. Well, that's the most practical thing that UP could do for now, I dare say. It cannot wait for the government to act. But now, I also claim that UP SHOULD NOT wait for government subsidy. As a Libertarian, it is not the proper role of government to involve itself in social services such as public education.
Perhaps, instead of calling for more greater state subsidy, which would mean more government spending of money robbed from the people through taxes, why not let the free market decide on how much the tuition of UP should be? Let it not be too high that no one would be willing to enroll, but let it not be too low than the unhampered market would dictate that the University could not meet the demand for incoming students.
Furthermore, perhaps there should not a single tuition fee per unit of instruction in the University. This ought to be based on the program being desired. Aside from limiting the number of enrollees in a particular course by means of IQ [i.e. UPCAT and other metrics for shiftees and transferees], limit the number of enrollees of a program by taking supply and demand as determinant of the tuition fee for that program. This way, resources are maximized.
As a corollary, this approach would entail those unpopular programs such as BA Anthropology, B Library and Information Sciences etc which have few students entering charge lower tuition fees. This way, those who prioritize studying UP without regard for a specific program could be encouraged to get in (assuming qualifications such as intelligence are met).
Perhaps, this is my answer to the issue over the last three years of whether to phase out unpopular programs. Maybe, UP should. These are nonperforming assets. If UP were a private enterprise, it would avoid offering non-performing programs in order to maximize resources.
Maybe, UP should not position itself as a benevolent University of the People. Perhaps, it is not its role to provide quality education for all people in different demographics.
Perhaps, UP should not hold the monopoly on the intellectual capital of this country. This monopoly is expressed by the joke “There are only two universities in the Philippines, UP and the others.” Perhaps by allowing UP to become more expensive (if that is dictated by the market) would force innovation in the Education sector. Why can't other Universities be set up with quality instruction comparable or even better to UP education that would absorb other intelligent students? Why can't there be other Universities where to be admitted is as stiff as UP so that one could also claim to be "matalino" and part of the creme of the crop?
Perhaps, these things could eventually come into fruition if we UP students stop demanding government subsidies and eventually let the University of the Philippines become private. Perhaps, by condemning the call for greater subsidy in UP, we will come to realize what the proper role of government is.
