The rule of law proves evasive in China

Washington Post
Editorial
September 29, 2012

A glance at the news from China on Friday might suggest a political system reacting properly to high-level wrongdoing. The former boss of Chongqing, Bo Xilai, once one of China’s most powerful regional figures, was expelled from the Communist Party and, according to official news media, faces charges of corruption. Earlier, Mr. Bo’s wife was convicted and given a suspended death sentence for the murder of a British businessman. Mr. Bo is a son of one of the party’s revolutionary founders, so his punishment must have been an agonizing decision for the secretive party clique that rules China.

But does the official version of events in Chongqing match what really happened? Given China’s opaque court system and controlled media, there’s no way to know. A more useful lesson of how law is used in China is provided by a decision that came Thursday from Beijing’s No. 2 People’s Intermediate Court.

The court rejected a second and final appeal by dissident artist Ai Weiwei against a $2.4 million fine for tax evasion. In the appeal, Mr. Ai accused the tax bureau of violating laws in handling witnesses and gathering evidence in his case. The court dismissed those claims in a ruling delivered abruptly to Mr. Ai by telephone. Mr. Ai, who was incarcerated for 81 days last year in a crackdown on dissidents, has long maintained the tax fine is retaliation for his outspoken criticism of China’s abuse of human rights. The authorities have retained Mr. Ai’s passport, preventing him from attending exhibitions of his work abroad, but he has refused to be silenced.

“What surprises me is that this society, which is developing at such a rapid rate today, still has the most barbaric and backward legal system,” he said. “I think it’s a bad omen.”

More

First Amendment Affront

Wall Street Journal
Editorial
September 28, 2012

In his address to the United Nations earlier this week, President Obama condemned "the crude and disgusting video [that] sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world." Some 48 hours later, police in California arrested the man behind the film "Innocence of Muslims," and a federal judge on Thursday night ordered Nakoula Basseley Nakoula held in jail without bond.

Mr. Nakoula allegedly used the alias Sam Bacile to produce and post an amateurish clip of the film, which may not exist in full, on YouTube. The government has charged him with eight counts of violating parole. In 2010, he was convicted of bank fraud and served a year of a 21-month sentence. His use of the Internet is restricted.

We're not privy to the specific parole terms to be able to pass judgment on the technical merits of the government's case. A judge will sort it out. But the decision to pursue him in the first place was a discretionary call by the government.

We doubt that every Web surfer on similar probation gets hauled back to prison. Or gets denied bail by a judge who called Mr. Nakoula "a flight risk," though it's hard to imagine he'd want to return to his native Egypt, the scene of the first violent protests on September 11, or go anywhere else. A minister in the Pakistani government has put a $100,000 bounty on his head.

More

Eπιτρέπεται η απαγόρευση πολιτικού κόμματος;

του Νίκου Κ. Αλιβιζάτου

Καθημερινή
23 Σεπτεμβρίου 2012

Στις συζητήσεις που προκάλεσε η φασιστική δράση της Χρυσής Αυγής έρχεται και επανέρχεται το ερώτημα: ώς πότε η δημοκρατία μας θα ανέχεται τις βίαιες πρακτικές του νεοναζιστικού αυτού κόμματος; Γιατί δεν το θέτει εκτός νόμου;

Δυστυχώς, η σχετική συζήτηση πήρε γρήγορα ηθικές και πολιτικές διαστάσεις. Υπάρχει καλή και κακή βία; Και αν ναι, ποιο είναι το κριτήριο της διάκρισης; Η ιδεολογία όσων την υποστηρίζουν; Το αν αυτή βλάπτει πολλούς ή λίγους; Το αν τους βλάπτει σοβαρά ή όχι; Ή μήπως τα κίνητρα όσων τη μετέρχονται;

Υπό τις σημερινές περιστάσεις, θεωρώ ότι η συζήτηση αυτή δεν έχει νόημα. Σε ένα κράτος δικαίου, όπως ευτυχώς παραμένει ακόμη η Ελλάδα, η βία είναι καταδικαστέα, απ’ οπουδήποτε και αν προέρχεται, όποιο χρώμα και αν έχουν οι σημαίες όσων την υποστηρίζουν. Διότι η δημοκρατία μας θα αυτοκαταργούνταν αν ανεχόταν άλλα μέσα πολιτικής δράσης, εκτός από την ψήφο των πολιτών και από την άσκηση των δικαιωμάτων που αναγνωρίζει κάθε φιλελεύθερη και δημοκρατική έννομη τάξη. Με άλλα λόγια, με όρους ποινικού δικαίου, η «ευγένεια» των όποιων προθέσεων θα μπορούσε να ληφθεί υπ’ όψιν, όχι βέβαια για τον αποκλεισμό του αδίκου, αλλά το πολύ πολύ ως ελαφρυντική περίπτωση, για την επιμέτρηση της ποινής (άρθρο 84 Π.Κ.).

Γιατί λοιπόν δεν απαγορεύονται κόμματα που όχι μόνο δεν καταδικάζουν τη βία, αλλά τη χρησιμοποιούν συστηματικά, ήδη από σήμερα, ως μέσο πολιτικής δράσης;

Μετά τις φρικαλεότητες του φασισμού και του ναζισμού, τα Συντάγματα πολλών δημοκρατικών χωρών προβλέπουν τη δυνατότητα απαγόρευσης «ανατρεπτικών» κομμάτων, συνήθως με δικαστικές εγγυήσεις. Γνωστότερα από αυτά είναι το γερμανικό και το τουρκικό. Οπως έχει κρίνει το Δικαστήριο του Στρασβούργου, η απαγόρευση αυτή, όταν θεμελιώνεται σε πράξεις και επίσημες διακηρύξεις και όχι σε μεμονωμένα περιστατικά, δεν προσκρούει στη Σύμβαση της Ρώμης (ΕΣΔΑ). Οι Αρχές, πάντως, δεν μπόρεσαν να εμποδίσουν την ανασύσταση των κομμάτων που απαγορεύτηκαν. Κάτι που λέει πολλά για τη μικρή αποτελεσματικότητα του θεσμού της απαγόρευσης, υπό καθεστώς δημοκρατίας.

Περισσότερα

Η Δημοκρατία και τα άκρα

του Νίκου Μαραντζίδη

Καθημερινή
23 Σεπτεμβρίου 2012

Είναι σαφές πως τα τελευταία χρόνια οι αντιπροσωπευτικοί θεσμοί της χώρας δέχτηκαν ισχυρό κλονισμό. Για πολλούς λόγους, σημαντικό τμήμα των πολιτών όχι μόνο στέκεται αδιάφορα έναντι της κοινοβουλευτικής δημοκρατίας αλλά δείχνει κιόλας πως δεν έχει πρόβλημα να αναζητήσει άλλους δρόμους. Το γεγονός αυτό μας φέρνει ξανά μπροστά σε κρίσιμα ερωτήματα: κινδυνεύει, πράγματι, η δημοκρατία από τα άκρα ή πρόκειται απλώς για προπαγάνδα των φιλελεύθερων υποστηρικτών της; Διαφέρει ουσιωδώς η αντισυστημική συμπεριφορά της άκρας δεξιάς από αυτήν της άκρας αριστεράς; Εντέλει, υπάρχουν δύο πολιτικά άκρα ή μόνον ένα;

Η συζήτηση εντάθηκε με τις περίφημες συγκεντρώσεις των «Αγανακτισμένων» στο Σύνταγμα. Οι «Αγανακτισμένοι» ανέδειξαν ένα μείγμα «φαιοκόκκινων» ιδεών και αξιών, ανάμεσα στις οποίες ειδικό βάρος είχαν ο αντιφιλελευθερισμός και ο αντικοινοβουλευτισμός. Βεβαίως, η δυναμική συνύπαρξη της ακροδεξιάς κουλτούρας με την ακροαριστερή ιδεολογία υπήρξε δυνατή χάρη στη συγκολλητική δύναμη του εθνολαϊκισμού και του αντιδυτικισμού. Η συστηματική επίκληση των παραδόσεων του «αντιστεκόμενου ελληνισμού» και η ιερή αγανάκτηση ενάντια στην «άκαρδη» Δύση θύμιζε κάποιες στιγμές τις συναθροίσεις για το Μακεδονικό τη δεκαετία του ’90. Με τη διαφορά πως, τώρα, η αριστερά είχε προσθέσει μεγαλύτερη δόση από το δικό της υλικό στο εθνολαϊκιστικό μείγμα.

Είναι αλήθεια πως, κρίνοντας αποκλειστικά από το περιεχόμενο των ιδεολογιών τους, τίποτε κοινό δεν υπάρχει ανάμεσα στα δύο πολιτικά άκρα. Αν η άκρα αριστερά πρεσβεύει έναν ισοπεδωτικό και διεθνιστικό εξισωτισμό, η άκρα δεξιά ευαγγελίζεται έναν ρατσιστικά δομημένο εθνικισμό. Ταξική πάλη και διεθνισμός από τη μια, φυλετισμός και εθνικισμός από την άλλη. Αρκεί όμως αυτή η «ανάλυση περιεχομένου» για να προσδιορίσει τη στάση των άκρων έναντι της φιλελεύθερης δημοκρατίας; Ασφαλώς όχι. Αν μέναμε εδώ θα επρόκειτο για μια ρηχή και αφελή ανάγνωση των σχέσεων της ανοικτής κοινωνίας με τους εχθρούς της.

Περισσότερα

U.S. Economic Freedom Plunges

by Ben Powell

Huffington Post
September 19, 2012

The United States is rapidly losing its status as one of the freest economies in the world. Economic freedom has decreased in the United States substantially since 2000 and lately its ranking among countries is plunging downward even faster. This spells trouble since economic freedom promotes growth and a higher standard of living.

Economists James Gwartney, Robert Lawson, and Joshua Hall publish an economic freedom of the world report annually. Their latest report, released this week, shows that the United States, which was ranked the second freest economy in 2000, now ranks 18th. Economic freedom increased from 1980 to 2000 in the United States while it was generally ranked behind Hong Kong and Singapore as the third freest economy in the world. Today it ranks behind European welfare states like Finland and Denmark, and places traditionally more hostile to economic freedom like Qatar.

The declines in freedom have occurred because the federal government has grown larger and more intrusive. It has been a non-partisan affair. Approximately two thirds of the decline in economic freedom occurred during Bush's presidency. But pace of decline doubled during the first two years of Obama's presidency. In fact, the new index is based off of data from 2010. If the rate of decline has remained unchanged over the last two years the United States has already fallen to 40th and ranks behind places like Romania, Sweden, and Panama. Unfortunately the data needed to investigate that is not available yet.

The decrease in economic freedom has occurred in most areas of the U.S. economy. The protection of private property rights showed the greatest decline. The decline is likely the result of the increased use of eminent domain, the ramping up of the wars on drugs and terror, and the increasingly uncertain business environment where it is unclear who the government will bail out and who will be allowed to breech contracts. The growth in the size of government and the increased scope, and administrative burden of, regulation have also decreased our economic freedom. Inflation adjusted government spending has grown by more than 50 percent since President Clinton left office.

More

See the Report

The audacity of democracy

by Akhil Reed Amar

Los Angeles Times
September 16, 2012

Monday marks the 225th anniversary of the turning point of the world — the hinge of modern human history.

On Sept. 16, 1787, kings, czars, sultans, princes, emperors, moguls, feudal lords and tribal chieftains dominated most of Earth's landmass and population. Wars and famines were commonplace. So it had always been. Democracies had existed in a few old Greek and Italian city-states, but most of these small-scale republics had winked out long before the American Revolution. While Britain had a House of Commons and a broad-based jury system, hereditary British kings and lords still retained vast powers. A small number of Swiss yeomen governed themselves, and the Dutch republic was on its last legs. That was about it for democracy in the world.

Today, roughly half the planet lives under democracy of some sort. What happened to precipitate this stunning global transformation?

Here's what. On Sept. 17, 1787, a small cluster of American notables who had been meeting behind closed doors in Philadelphia went public with an audacious proposal. The plan, signed by George Washington, Benjamin Franklin and 37 other leading statesmen, began as follows: "We the People of the United States … do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

More

Steve Brodner

                 

Death at Guantánamo Bay

Amnesty International

New York Times
Editorial
September 15, 2012

Adnan Farhan Abdul Latif, a Yemeni citizen and one of the first detainees sent to Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, in January 2002, died there earlier this month. There is no official autopsy report yet, but in his decade in prison he had gone on hunger strikes and made several suicide attempts.

In 2006 and 2008, during the George W. Bush administration, and again in 2010, during the Obama administration, government officials recommended Mr. Latif for transfer out of Guantánamo as a low-level threat. But he was kept behind bars — though no formal charges were brought against him — because both administrations were wary of sending detainees back to Yemen for security reasons, and other countries were wary of accepting them.

Mr. Latif’s lawyers battled for his freedom in federal court, making him a test case for the rule of law at Guantánamo, which has been notably deficient.

More

Terry Jones and the First Amendment

by Geoffrey R. Stone

Huffington Post
September 14, 2012

Are those who condemn Islam and mock Mohammad protected by the First Amendment? There are two arguments one might make to support the proposition that such speech is beyond the protection of the Constitution. First, one might argue that such speech is blasphemous and, as such, is outside the boundaries of the First Amendment.

Historically, supporters of laws against blasphemy have argued that such laws are necessary to avert divine wrath, to enforce conformity with prevailing beliefs, to insulate those beliefs from the contagion of doubt, to protect the sensibilities of believers, and to avoid retaliation by believers against those who deride their beliefs.

During the Middle Ages, the penalty for blasphemy included death, imprisonment on bread and water (often causing a lingering death), cutting off the lips, and burning or tearing out the tongue. During the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, executions and other brutal punishments for blasphemy were inflicted throughout Europe.

More

Muslims Must Adjust to Mockery, Like Everyone Else

by Lisa Beyer

Bloomberg
September 12, 2012

When Westerners mock Islam and thus run the risk of provoking Muslims to commit mayhem, it's tempting to excoriate the mockers.

That's what the U.S. Embassy in Egypt did, after word got out about a trailer on YouTube for a vulgar, amateurish U.S.-produced video depicting the prophet Muhammad as a pederast-recruiting idiot who receives the inspiration for Islam while burying his head between the thighs of a woman. The embassy condemned "misguided individuals" who "hurt the religious feelings of Muslims."

It was for naught. Rioters stormed the embassy in Cairo and attempted to do the same in Tunis. Protests broke out in the Gaza Strip. In Afghanistan, the Taliban called on citizens to "take revenge" on Americans. Worst, in Libya, a rocket attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi claimed the lives of four U.S. diplomats, including Ambassador Chris Stevens. The U.S. is exploring the possibility that the Benghazi attack was planned, with perpetrators exploiting outrage over the video for timing.

More

The Crisis of Capitalist Democracy

with Judge Richard A. Posner

Elmhurst College
The Democracy Forum
September 6, 2012

Richard Allen Posner is a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit; a senior lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School; and the author of nearly 40 books on an astonishing array of topics, including economics, jurisprudence, aging, terrorism, literature, plagiarism and sex. The Journal of Legal Studies calls him the most cited legal scholar of the last century. He now turns what The New York Times calls his "indefatigable intellect" to the ongoing economic crisis and the efforts of the "cumbersome, clotted, competence-challenged" American system of government to respond to it. A Democracy Forum Lecture.

Greece as a Precautionary Tale of the Welfare State

by Aristides N. Hatzis

Chapter from the collective volume
After the Welfare State
edited by Tom G. Palmer
Atlas Economic Research Foundation
Washington, DC, 2012

Few contemporary democracies off er tales of institutional failure as startling as that of Greece. Despite a turbulent political history in the twentieth century, the Greek economy gained ground during decades of actual wealth creation, until the country’s main parties started to compete on the basis of welfare statism, based on populism and patronage. Law and economics scholar Aristides Hatzis shows how short-term pursuit of political advantage through statist policies generated corruption, indebtedness, and political collapse. Hatzis is professor of the philosophy of law and theory of institutions at the University of Athens and writes about the Greek crisis at GreekCrisis.net.

Modern Greece has become a symbol of economic and political bankruptcy, a natural experiment in institutional failure. It’s not easy for a single country to serve as a textbook example of so many institutional defi ciencies, rigidities, and distortions, yet the Greek government has managed it. The case of Greece is a precautionary tale for all others.

Greece used to be considered something of a success story. One could even argue that Greece was a major success story for several decades. Greece’s average rate of growth for half a century (1929–1980) was 5.2 percent; during the same period Japan grew at only 4.9 percent.

These numbers are more impressive if you take into consideration that the political situation in Greece during these years was anything but normal. From 1929 to 1936 the political situation was anomalous with coups, heated political strife, short-lived dictatorships, and a struggle to assimilate more than 1.5 million refugees from Asia Minor (about one-third of Greece’s population at the time). From 1936 to 1940 Greece had a rightist dictatorship with many similarities to the other European dictatorships of the time and during World War II (1940–1944) Greece was among the most devastated nations in terms of percentage of human casualties. Right aft er the end of the war a ferocious and devastating Civil War took place (in two stages: 1944 and 1946–1949) aft er an insurgency organized by the Communist Party. From 1949 to 1967 Greece off ered a typical example of a paternalistic illiberal democracy, deficient in rule of law, and on April 21, 1967, a military junta took power and ruled Greece until July 1974, when Greece became a constitutional liberal democracy. The economy of Greece managed to grow despite wars, insurgencies, dictatorships, and a turbulent political life.

Seven years aft er embracing constitutional democracy the nine (then) members of the European Community (EC) accepted Greece as its tenth member (even before Spain and Portugal). Why? It was mostly a political decision but it was also based on decades of economic growth, despite all the setbacks and obstacles. When Greece entered the EC, the country’s public debt stood at 28 percent of GDP; the budget defi cit was less than 3 percent of GDP; and the unemployment rate was 2–3 percent.

But that was not the end of the story.

You can read the rest of the chapter here

or you can download the entire volume (free):

More

Paul Ryan’s Intellectual Muse

by Richard Epstein

Hoover Institution
Defining Ideas
August 28, 2012

The wisdom of Hayek is exactly what this country needs right now.

My last column for Defining Ideas, “Franklin Delano Obama,” stressed the dangers of Franklin Roosevelt’s “Second Bill of Rights,” which was long on rights but short on any articulation of their correlative duties. Roosevelt’s program works well everywhere except in a world of scarce resources, which, alas, is the only world we will ever know.

Fortunately, Roosevelt quickly met with some determined intellectual resistance. In 1944, when Roosevelt unveiled his “Second Bill of Rights,” Friedrich von Hayek, an Austrian economist, political theorist, and future Nobel Prize winner, wrote The Road To Serfdom. That book rightly became a sensation both in England and in the United States, especially after the publication of its condensed version in The Reader’s Digest in April 1945. Hayek’s basic message was the exact opposite of Roosevelt’s. He was deeply suspicious of government intervention into markets, thinking that it could lead to economic stagnation on the one hand and to political tyranny on the other.

Hayek has never been out of the news. But, right now, his name has been batted around in political circles because Paul Ryan, the Republican Vice-Presidential nominee, has acknowledged that he regards Hayek as one of his intellectual muses. That observation brought forward in the New York Times an ungracious critique (called “Made in Austria” in the print edition) of both Hayek and Ryan by Adam Davidson, a co-founder of NPR’s Planet Money. Davidson’s essay reveals a profound misunderstanding of Hayek’s contribution to twentieth-century thought in political economy.

Davidson leads with a snarky and inaccurate comment that, “A few years ago, it was probably possible to fit every living Hayekian into a conference room.” But it is utterly inexcusable to overlook, as Davidson does, Hayek’s enduring influence. A year after the Road to Serfdom came out, Hayek published his 1945 masterpiece in the American Economics Review, “The Use of Knowledge in Society,” which has been cited over 8,600 times. In this short essay, Hayek explained how the price system allows widely dispersed individuals with different agendas and preferences to coordinate their behaviors in ways that move various goods and services to higher value uses.

More

Prime Time for Paul Ryan’s Guru (the One Who’s Not Ayn Rand)

Friedrich von Hayek

by Adam Davidson

New York Times
August 21, 2012

As Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney take the stage in Tampa next week, the ghost of an Austrian economist will be hovering above them with an uneasy smile on his face. Ryan has repeatedly suggested that many of his economic ideas were inspired by the work of Friedrich von Hayek, an awkwardly shy (and largely ignored) economist and philosopher who died in 1992. A few years ago, it was probably possible to fit every living Hayekian in a conference room. Regardless of what happens in November, that will no longer be the case.

Hayek’s ideas aren’t completely new to American politics. Some mainstream Republicans, including Ronald Reagan, have name-checked him since at least the 1980s as a shorthand way of signaling their unfettered faith in the free market and objection to big government. But few actually engaged with Hayek’s many contentious (and outré) views, particularly his suspicion of all politicians, including Republicans, who claim to know something about how to make an economy function better. For these reasons, and others, Hayek has become fashionable of late among antigovernment protesters, and if Ryan brings even a watered-down version of his ideas into the Republican mainstream, the country’s biggest battles about the economy won’t be between right and left, but within the Republican Party itself — between Tea Party radicals who may feel legitimized and the establishment politicians they believe stand in their way.

For the past century, nearly every economic theory in the world has emerged from a broad tradition known as neoclassical economics. (Even communism can be seen as a neoclassical critique.) Neoclassicists can be left-wing or right-wing, but they share a set of crucial core beliefs, namely that it is useful to look for government policies that can improve the economy. Hayek and the rest of his ilk — known as the Austrian School — reject this. To an Austrian, the economy is incomprehensibly complex and constantly changing; and technocrats and politicians who claim to have figured out how to use government are deluded or self-interested or worse. According to Hayek, government intervention in the free market, like targeted tax cuts, can only make things worse.

More

A Russian farce over a punk rock band

Washington Post 
Editorial
August 18, 2012

In late 1933, a young writer in Moscow composed a 16-line poem that depicted a cruel and ghastly dictator, Joseph Stalin, with polished boots and thin-necked henchmen. “His thick fingers are bulky and fat like live-baits,” wrote Osip Mandelshtam. “He is forging his rules and decrees like horseshoes — into groins, into foreheads, in eyes, and eyebrows. Every killing for him is a delight. …” The poem led to Mandelshtam’s persecution, and he died in a Soviet prison camp five years later.

His poem, a satirical polemic, is worth recalling in the wake of a decision Friday by a Moscow judge to sentence three women who make up Pussy Riot, a punk rock band, to jail for two years as a punishment for their disrespectful performance art.

In February, the women, dressed in tights, colorful ski masks and short skirts, mounted a platform in front of the altar of the Cathedral of Christ the Savior in Moscow and, with some wild dancing, mimed a short “punk prayer” critical of President Vladimir Putin and his close ties to the Russian Orthodox Church. Others recorded a video of their antics. The performance took less than a minute. Later, the group added music and lyrics to a video that went viral, and they were arrested for “hooliganism” and inciting religious hatred.

More

Iran and the Human Rights Opening

by Mehdi Khalaji

Wall Street Journal
August 7, 2012

With tensions mounting over Iran's nuclear program, the West has dealt the Tehran regime crippling blows on several fronts, including through sanctions, the targeted killing of scientists, and cyber operations such as the Stuxnet virus. Tehran is no doubt reeling but regime leaders have spotted a silver lining: The West's single-minded focus on the nuclear dossier has permitted them to widen their violations of human rights.

Indeed, since the protests that followed the 2009 election, Iran's human-rights abuses have worsened substantially—a development that has gone largely unnoticed in the U.S. and Europe. This is a tragedy with profound strategic implications for the West.

The Iranian legal system allows numerous human-rights violations, including discrimination against women and ethno-sectarian minorities, and the imposition of brutal penal sentences, such as stoning. Tehran's ruling theocrats view human rights as a Western invention used to undermine Islamic culture and sovereignty as part of what Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei considers a soft war against Iran. They therefore do not believe themselves duty-bound to uphold their basic human-rights obligations, including those under international agreements to which they are party.

Consider this example: A man, under house arrest for the past two years, learned of the death at different points of his two sisters. The state refused him the right to attend either funeral. This outrageous case did not involve an average Iranian citizen but rather Mehdi Karroubi, a presidential candidate in 2009 and the former speaker of parliament. Mr. Karroubi has remained under arbitrary house arrest since the post-election uprising along with two other dissidents, Mir Hossein Mousavi—the opposition's leading presidential candidate—and his wife, Zahra Rahnavard, who was heavily involved in her husband's campaign.

More

David Gothard

International Religious Freedom Report for 2011: Greece

U.S. Department of State
August 2012

The constitution and other laws and policies protect religious freedom and, in practice, the government generally respected religious freedom and took measures designed to address concerns. The primary issue remained the degree to which religious groups are afforded the same privileges and legal prerogatives granted the Orthodox Church. The government demonstrated a moderate trend toward improvement in respect for protection of the right to religious freedom.

There were some reports of societal abuses or discrimination based on religious affiliation, belief, or practice. The Greek Orthodox Church exercised significant social, political, and economic influence. Some non-Orthodox citizens complained of being treated with suspicion or being told they were not truly Greek when they revealed their religious affiliations to other Greek citizens. Other religious groups reported discrimination by members of society. Members of the Muslim minority in Thrace were underrepresented in public sector employment and no Muslim military personnel advanced to officer ranks.

The U.S. government discussed religious freedom with the government as part of its overall policy to promote human rights. The ambassador and consul general in Thessaloniki met with government and religious leaders on a regular basis. They also hosted iftars (evening meals during Ramadan) attended by a broad range of government, community, diplomatic, nongovernmental organization (NGO), media, academic, and religious leaders, and attended Holocaust memorial events.

Read the Report

China's Growth: Planning or Private Enterprise?

by Paul Gregory

Library of Economics & Liberty
August 6, 2012

Introduction

China appears to have come through the world economic crisis better than many other countries. China's admirers claim that, under China's "state capitalism," planners have guided large state companies rationally and wisely through the rough seas of the world economy. The Chinese Communist Party (CPC) plans, oversees, and administers the interwoven network of state banks, airlines, railroads, utilities, oil companies, and large manufacturers, all of which make up the economy's "commanding heights" (to use Lenin's term). As Europe and the United States slump, the CPC can speedily launch infrastructure projects or shift millions of migrant workers from one locality to another. There is no messy democracy to gum up the works. New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman extols: "A one party system can just impose the politically difficult but critically important policies needed to move a society forward in the 21st century."

But Ludwig von Mises in the 1920s and F. A. Hayek in the 1930s discredited the idea that planners can manage an entire economy. Hayek pointed out that central planners lack "the knowledge of the particular circumstances of time and place." Because the planners do not have the information that rests with hundreds of thousands of companies and millions of consumers, planning fails, as it did spectacularly in the Soviet Union. Interestingly, even socialist economist Robert Heilbroner admitted as much. China is not an exception. Its economic growth has occurred despite the government's economic planning and because of its large, dynamic private sector.

China's Economic Growth

As Figure 1 shows, China's Gross Domestic Product grew from 1979 to the present at an average of slightly over 8.5 percent per annum. Although Japan and the Four Tigers (Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan) matched that growth rate at various points in the past, more than thirty years of such high growth is unique. The CPC would like us to believe its growth is due to its peculiar brand of socialism with a Chinese face. In fact, what deserves credit is the entrepreneurship of the Chinese people.

Figure 1. China's Growth Rate of GDP, 1983-2011

More

The Shame of Putin’s Courts

by Masha Gessen

New York Times
August 6, 2012

Of all the bad feelings one can have about one’s own country, shame is the most painful. Righteous outrage motivates one to act; sadness breeds solidarity; even fear can bring people together. But shame not only makes you want to jump out of your skin, it also means you have already effectively jumped out of the skin that is your country.

I distinctly recall the first time I recognized the feeling of shame in myself. It was a bit over a year ago, when I watched a video of an American gay activist, Lt. Dan Choi, being grabbed and dragged off by the Moscow police just outside Red Square for attempting to take part in an illegal gay pride parade. I remember, too, thinking about what was causing me to feel ashamed: I was imagining many of my friends in other countries watching the video and thinking of me as living in a backward country.

This summer, that feeling is growing familiar. The ongoing trial of three members of Pussy Riot, the girl band that staged an anti-Putin “punk prayer service” in Moscow’s main cathedral, has been compared to the Spanish Inquisition, a witch hunt, and Stalinist show trials (I am guilty of that comparison, too). All of these comparisons give the Moscow court too much credit. The Inquisition, the witch hunters, and even Stalin’s executioners believed in their causes and fought passionately for them. What is going on in the Moscow courtroom today is a dispassionate, cynical travesty of justice.

More

We're In Milton Friedman's World

by Timothy B. Lee

Forbes
July 31, 2012

The web is awash in well-deserved tributes to Milton Friedman on what would have been his one hundredth birthday. Friedman’s Free to Choose was one of the first books on public policy I read in high school, and it has had an immense effect on how I view the world.

Some of Friedman’s policy proposals, such as school vouchers and drug legalization, are still hotly debated today. But I think the most important measure of a thinker’s influence are his once-controversial ideas that are now considered so obvious that no one seriously disputes them. I’ve recently been reading a collection of Friedman’s Newsweek columns from the late 1960s and early 1970s, a time when he was at the peak of his fame and influence. Among the proposals he wrote about most frequently were: severing the link to gold and letting the dollar float, fighting inflation by reducing the growth of the money supply, ending the draft, abolishing wage and price controls, and cutting taxes.

Most of these proposals were adopted by the end of the 1970s. All are still practiced today. But more remarkably, they’re all now considered so obviously correct that few people seriously advocate returning to the policies of the 1970s.

More

Celebrating Milton Friedman

by Andrew J. Coulson

Cato.org
July 31, 2012

For us, who lived in the communist world, Milton Friedman was the greatest champion of freedom, of limited and unobtrusive government and of free markets. Because of him I became a true believer in the unrestricted market economy.

Those are the words of Czech President Vaclav Klaus. Both Friedman's writings and his landmark 1980 documentary series "Free to Choose" were smuggled into totalitarian communist states, inspiring a generation of future scholars, activists, and politicians.

July 31st, 2012 is the 100th anniversary of Friedman's birth. To commemorate that occasion, the Cato Institute has put together a video interview with Bob Chitester, producer of "Free to Choose," recounting how it came to be, its impact, and what it was like working with Milton Friedman.

Aside from those who lived under communism, there is another group for whom Friedman was and is a colossal figure: advocates of educational freedom. At a time when state-run schooling had been the norm for nearly a century, and had long ceased to be questioned by America's elites, Friedman offered a modest observation: there was no good reason for the government of a free society to actually run schools and many good reasons for it not to do so.

More

An Ode to Milton Friedman

by Bryan Caplan

Library of Economics & Liberty
July 31, 2012

Today would have been Milton Friedman's 100th birthday. I only met the man long enough for him to sign my copy of Capitalism and Freedom, but he's been a tremendous influence on me.

All of my other adolescent intellectual heroes - Ayn Rand, Murray Rothbard, Ludwig von Mises - gradually came to seem less impressive in my eyes. But the greatness of Milton Friedman is as constant as the Northern Star. Whether he's calling for the abolition of medical licensing in Capitalism and Freedom, or analyzing the co-movement of the money supply and money velocity in A Monetary History of the United States, Friedman takes controversial stances, and actually convinces people.

Why does Friedman stand apart from my other idols? In the end, it's the absence of obscurantism. Friedman makes his points as simply, clearly, and bluntly as possible. He never rambles on. He never hides behind academic jargon. He almost never makes bizarre philosophical assertions to explain away obvious facts. He never tries to win fair weather converts by speaking in vague generalities about "liberty." Friedman never turned out to have feet of clay, because he played every game barefoot.

More

Milton Friedman, a centennial appreciation

by Donald J. Boudreaux

Newsday
July 30, 2012

At the height of the Vietnam War, U.S. commander Gen. William Westmoreland testified before the President's Commission on an All-Volunteer Force. The 15 members of that commission were charged with exploring the feasibility of ending the military draft.

Staunchly opposed to an all-volunteer military, which must pay its soldiers market wages, Gen. Westmoreland proclaimed that he did not want to command "an army of mercenaries." One of the commission members immediately shot back with a question: "General, would you rather command an army of slaves?" That penetrating query was posed by Milton Friedman, a diminutive (he stood only 5 feet 3 inches tall) giant among 20th-century scholars. Were he still alive - he died in 2006 - Friedman would celebrate his 100th birthday on July 31.

Bald and bespectacled, Friedman looked every part the University of Chicago economics professor that he was. During his long tenure at that celebrated institution, he produced a stream of cutting-edge research on consumer behavior, on the role of money, and on the history of U.S. and British monetary policy. The impressive quantity, quality, and importance of this research without doubt places Friedman among the top two or three economists of the past century.

Friedman, indeed, is one of the few scholars whose receipt of the Nobel Prize in Economics - which he received in 1976 - did at least as much to bestow prestige on that award as that award did to bestow prestige on him. (The first Nobel Prize in Economics wasn't awarded until 1969.) Friedman's stupendous scholarly achievements alone justify commemoration of the centenary of his birth.

More

Big Hong Kong protest assails Communist Party ‘brainwashing’

Washington Post
July 29, 2012

Tens of thousands of protesters paraded through Hong Kong on Sunday, waving placards denouncing “brainwashing” by China’s Communist Party and calling for the scrapping of plans for “national education” courses in local schools.

The protest, organized by teachers, parents and student groups as well as local political organizations hostile to Beijing’s one-party system, demonstrated deep opposition to the introduction of classes that aim to boost knowledge of and attachment to China in this freewheeling former British colony of 7.2 million.

China recovered sovereignty over Hong Kong 15 years ago in a blaze of fireworks and patriotic fervor. It granted the metropolis a high degree of autonomy as a Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China. But Beijing has grown frustrated that many in Hong Kong, though ethnically Chinese, do not identify much with the rest of the country, under Communist rule since 1949.

Although increasingly dependent economically on mainland China, Hong Kong, according to a recent opinion poll by Hong Kong University, now has less trust in the central government in Beijing than at any time since the 1997 handover. Separate polls show that bonds of shared identity with the rest of China have grown weaker, not stronger.

More

North Korea's Extreme Makeover

by Blaine Harden

Foreign Policy
July 26, 2012

With each news cycle, North Korea's young dictator appears a bit more huggable. In late July, we learned that Kim Jong Un had married Comrade Ri Sol Ju, playing a poised Kate Middleton to his porcine Prince William. Together on television, we can watch the chosen couple smile, interact with happy children, and perform a lengthy inspection of an Oz-like kindergarten.

Thanks to North Korean state media, we know, too, that Kim is flirting with something that might possibly be construed as reform. He seems to have sacked a hard-line general. He could be rolling back the privileges of the army. When a missile launched fizzled, he didn't lie about it. In April, four months after his father died, he delivered a speech that suggested economic change could solve food shortages. He didn't dwell on details, but his government seems to have dispatched 200 officials to study Chinese-style capitalism. He has reportedly sent about 40,000 technicians, seamstresses, and mechanics to work in China on industrial training visas.

For a 20-something supreme leader, Kim's feel for small-ball symbolism seems unusually shrewd -- and seductive to Westerners. He allowed women to wear pants at public events. In the company of the smartly dressed woman we now know to be his wife, he enjoyed a live Mickey Mouse performance and gave a thumbs-up to a concert rendition of the theme from "Rocky."

More

Υπεράνω κριτικής

του Ανδρέα Πετρουλάκη

Protagon.gr
20 Ιουλίου 2012

Θυμάστε εκείνη την πολυήμερη απεργία των εργαζομένων στην ΕΡΤ που την αναγγελία της συνόδευε η επισήμανση ότι η ΕΡΤ είναι κερδοφόρα, αποκρύπτοντας ότι χρηματοδοτείται ακουσίως από τους καταναλωτές της ΔΕΗ; Είχε και άλλα ευτράπελα αλλά και σοβαρότερα παρεπόμενα εκείνη η απεργία.

Ο συνάδελφος Πάσχος Μανδραβέλης είχε γράψει τότε τη γνώμη του για την κινητοποίηση εκείνη. Περίπου έγραφε ότι στο μακρύ διάστημα της σιωπής της η κρατική τηλεόραση δεν έλειψε από κανέναν και ότι έπρεπε να επανεξεταστεί το πλαίσιο λειτουργίας της και ο αριθμός των καναλιών από τα οποία εκπέμπει, συνυπολογίζοντας τα 300 εκατομμύρια που πληρώνουν οι πολίτες, θέλοντας και μη, για τη λειτουργία της. Οι οποίοι πληρώνουν την ΕΡΤ αλλά στην συντριπτική πλειοψηφία τους βλέπουν άλλα κανάλια. Συμφωνούμε ή διαφωνούμε δεν ενδιαφέρει-ήταν η γνώμη του. Ο Κώδικας Δημοσιογραφικής Δεοντολογίας προστατεύει “την ελευθερία έκφρασης και πληροφόρησης, την αυτονομία και αξιοπρέπεια του δημοσιογράφου και την ελευθεροτυπία επ΄αγαθώ της δημοκρατίας και της κοινωνίας”.

Επομένως, αφού ο Μανδραβέλης δεν συκοφάντησε, προσέβαλε, αποσιώπησε ή παραποίησε, έκανε αυτό που είχε δικαίωμα και υποχρέωση να κάνει. Να διατυπώσει ελεύθερα την άποψή του, όποια και αν είναι αυτή, να την εκθέσει στη δημόσια κρίση όπως κάνουμε όλοι μας, και να προκαλέσει την διατύπωση αντιθέτων ή παρομοίων απόψεων. Τετριμμένα και αυτονόητα όλα αυτά αλλά δυστυχώς πρέπει να τα επαναλάβουμε. Γιατί η άποψή του Πάσχου Μανδραβάλη δεν αντικρούστηκε από μία άλλη άποψη αλλά από μία παραπομπή στο Πειθαρχικό της ΄Ενωσης. Με την κατηγορία εν ολίγοις της μη τήρησης της συναδελφικής αλληλεγγύης. Τι κι αν ο αρθρογράφος δεν αναφέρθηκε ποτέ προσωπικά σε κανέναν συνάδελφο αλλά οι επισημάνσεις του αφορούσαν μόνο την συνδικαλιστική πρακτική της ΠΟΣΠΕΡΤ και την κρατική σπατάλη στην ΕΡΤ; Χτες βγήκε η απόφαση που καταδίκασε τον Π.Μ. σε τρίμηνη διαγραφή.

Περισσότερα

James Madison and the Making of America

Kevin R. C. Gutzman

reviewed by Scott Douglas Gerber

Law & Politics Book Review
July 2012

Kevin R. C. Gutzman, Professor of History at Western Connecticut State University, has written a fine single volume political biography of James Madison. There are a lot of books about Madison – too many, perhaps – but Gutzman provides a splendid account of Madison’s long and distinguished public life. The principal lessons I took from Gutzman’s tome are how much Madison contributed to the history of the United States and how modest Madison was about his contributions. I already knew the first lesson. The second was interesting to learn. Gutzman concludes his book by comparing Madison’s grave to that of his mentor Thomas Jefferson:

One finds at Madison’s grave that here, as in so much else, he differed markedly from his great friend who now lies buried twenty miles away. There is no stone inscribed with Madison’s preferred titles from among the long list he had earned, including Co-Author of the Constitution, Author of the Bill of Rights, Co-Author of The Federalist, Co-Author of the Virginia Declaration of Rights, Founder of the Republican Party, Author of the Virginia Resolutions of 1798 and Report of 1800, Rector of the University of Virginia, President of the American Colonization Society, and Sponsor of the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom – not to mention all the political offices he held, mostly to great effect (p.362).

It is an impressive feat that Gutzman manages to cover so much ground in 363 pages of text. His book is divided into eight chapters. Several of the chapters describe events that are very familiar to students of the American Founding: Madison’s leading role in the Philadelphia Convention of 1787 that produced the U.S. Constitution (chapter 3), his magnificent contributions to The Federalist during the ratification debates of 1787-1788 (chapter 4), and his shepherding of the Bill of Rights through the First Congress in 1789 (a substantial portion of chapter 6). To borrow a lawyer’s term of art, some of the other chapters served to “refresh my recollection” about events that I had not thought seriously about since college, such as Madison’s supervision of the Louisiana Purchase as Jefferson’s secretary of state, the quagmire during his own presidency that was the War of 1812, and the groundbreaking ceremonial role that his wife Dolley played as First Lady of the United States, both during the presidency of the widower Jefferson and, of course, of Madison himself. The fact that so much of Gutzman’s story is a familiar one is not meant as a criticism: Gutzman’s goal was to write an effective trade book about Madison and he has succeeded nicely.

More

The remarkable story of Chile’s economic renaissance

by Daniel J. Mitchell & Julia Morriss

Daily Caller
July 18, 2012

Thirty years ago, Chile was a basket case. A socialist government in the 1970s had crippled the economy and destabilized society, leading to civil unrest and a military coup. Given the dismal situation, it’s no surprise that Chile’s economy was moribund and other Latin American countries, such as Mexico, Venezuela, and Argentina, had about twice as much per-capita economic output.

Today, by contrast, Chile has passed Argentina to become the richest nation in all of Latin America. For three decades, it has been the fastest-growing economy in the region. Poverty has fallen dramatically, and living standards have soared.

Let’s look at how Chile became the Latin Tiger.

Pension reform is the best-known economic reform in Chile. Ever since the early 1980s, workers have been allowed to put 10 percent of their income into a personal retirement account. This system, implemented by José Piñera, has been remarkably successful, reducing the burden of taxes and spending and increasing saving and investment, while also producing a 50-100 percent increase in retirement benefits. Chile is now a nation of capitalists.

More

Clinton’s talk of democracy in Asia lacks precision

by David Pilling

Financial Times
July 11, 2012

This week Hillary Clinton pulled off a remarkable feat. She gave an entire speech about China without mentioning the C-word. Although the US secretary of state avoided explicit reference to China, she did use the D-word. By my count, she mentioned “democracy” 48 times.

The speech was given in Mongolia, a country on China’s doorstep (or should that be door-steppe), whose “pluralistic, democratic system”, Mrs Clinton said, set an example. She even talked about a “community of democracies”, which was a new one on me. Parliament of owls. Murder of crows. Community of democracies.

This is not to denigrate the contents of Mrs Clinton’s speech. She is right to stand up for individual liberties, freedom of expression and freedom from persecution for one’s beliefs. She is right, too, to stress the importance of women’s rights, sadly lacking in parts of Asia. One can only hope she makes the same speech next time she visits Riyadh.

Mrs Clinton was also correct in pointing to the progress towards democracy that some Asian countries have made. She quoted Freedom House, a US-based non-governmental advocacy group, which says Asia has come further over the past five years than any other region. A few veterans of Tahrir Square might quibble with that. But several Asian countries have undoubtedly taken important democratic steps. The most obvious is Myanmar, where political prisoners have been released, press restrictions relaxed and Aung San Suu Kyi’s opposition National League for Democracy allowed to contest – and win – parliamentary by-elections.

More

Freedom House

Obama the Socialist? Not Even Close

by Milos Forman

New York Times
July 10, 2012

When I was asked to direct One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest, my friends warned me not to go anywhere near it.

The story is so American, they argued, that I, an immigrant fresh off the boat, could not do it justice. They were surprised when I explained why I wanted to make the film. To me it was not just literature but real life, the life I lived in Czechoslovakia from my birth in 1932 until 1968. The Communist Party was my Nurse Ratched, telling me what I could and could not do; what I was or was not allowed to say; where I was and was not allowed to go; even who I was and was not.

Now, years later, I hear the word “socialist” being tossed around by the likes of Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and others. President Obama, they warn, is a socialist. The critics cry, “Obamacare is socialism!” They falsely equate Western European-style socialism, and its government provision of social insurance and health care, with Marxist-Leninist totalitarianism. It offends me, and cheapens the experience of millions who lived, and continue to live, under brutal forms of socialism.

My sister-in-law’s father, Jan Kunasek, lived in Czechoslovakia all his life. He was a middle-class man who ran a tiny inn in a tiny village. One winter night in 1972, during a blizzard, a man, soaked to the bone, awakened him at 2 in the morning. The man looked destitute and, while asking for shelter, couldn’t stop cursing the Communists. Taking pity, the elderly Mr. Kunasek put him up for the night.

A couple of hours later, Mr. Kunasek was awakened again, this time by three plainclothes policemen. He was arrested, accused of sheltering a terrorist and sentenced to several years of hard labor in uranium mines. The state seized his property. When he was finally released, ill and penniless, he died within a few weeks. Years later we learned that the night visitor had been working for the police. According to the Communists, Mr. Kunasek was a class enemy and deserved to be punished.

More

A Triumph for Democracy in Libya

by Ann Marlowe

Wall Street Journal
July 10, 2012

I was surprised and touched to receive holiday greetings from Libyan friends around the Fourth of July. Mohamed Hilal El Senussi, a grandnephew of Libya's first and last king, emailed: "I would like to extend to you and your family my very best wishes. May God bless America." His sentiment was clear: Libyans love free Libya as much as we love America.

Most Libyans admire America and our heritage of liberty. It helps that the U.S. government—unlike Britain's or Italy's or France's—never cozied up to Gadhafi. And this Fourth of July held a special resonance for Libyans: They took to the polls on July 7 in the first free multiparty elections since a vote in 1952 that was restricted to men and cast without secret ballots.

Several of my acquaintances were among the 4,000 candidates for the 200-seat General National Congress, which is to form a ministerial government to replace the Transitional National Council. One independent who lost, archeologist Shawki Moammar, still sounded thrilled as he told me on the evening of July 8 that the National Forces Alliance led by Mahmoud Jibril was leading.

This coalition is not liberal or secular in the Western sense, but it supports a civil state and is opposed to the values of the Muslim Brotherhood's Justice and Construction Party. Mr. Moammar said, "Now I am not scared for the Libyan people. We are not like Egypt and Tunisia. I am very happy to see democracy for the first time in Libya."

More

Greek Far Right Hangs a Target on Immigrants

New York Times
July 10, 2012

A week after an extremist right-wing party gained an electoral foothold in Greece’s Parliament earlier this summer, 50 of its members riding motorbikes and armed with heavy wooden poles roared through Nikaia, a gritty suburb west of here, to telegraph their new power.

As townspeople watched, several of them said in interviews, the men careened around the main square, some brandishing shields emblazoned with swastikalike symbols, and delivered an ultimatum to immigrants whose businesses have catered to Nikaia’s Greeks for nearly a decade.

“They said: ‘You’re the cause of Greece’s problems. You have seven days to close or we’ll burn your shop — and we’ll burn you,’ ” said Mohammed Irfan, a legal Pakistani immigrant who owns a hair salon and two other stores. When he called the police for help, he said, the officer who answered said they did not have time to come to the aid of immigrants like him.

A spokesman for the party, Golden Dawn, denied that anyone associated with the group had made such a threat, and there are no official numbers on attacks against immigrants. But a new report by Human Rights Watch warns that xenophobic violence has reached “alarming proportions” in parts of Greece, and it accuses the authorities of failing to stop the trend.

More

See also

Read the Human Rights Watch Report

An Organ 'Donor' Revolution

by Sally Satel

Wall Street Journal
July 9, 2012

With all eyes fixed on the Supreme Court's recent health-care decision, a life-saving development swooped in under the radar: It is now legal to compensate bone-marrow donors. This represents a triumph for the 2,000-3,000 people with cancer and blood diseases who die each year while awaiting a marrow transplant.

Efforts to challenge the federal ban on compensating marrow donors began three years ago, led by the Institute for Justice, a public-interest law firm. The firm's clients were families afraid their ill loved ones would die because they couldn't get a transplant.

Last December, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled unanimously in their favor. Pivotal to the judge's decision was that modern bone-marrow donation is accomplished through a process called apheresis, through which doctors filter bone marrow stem cells from blood drawn from a donor's arm. The process takes several hours.

The apheresis technique did not exist in the early 1980s, when the law banning organ sales (the National Organ Transplant Act of 1984) was drafted. At the time, marrow donation was arduous, involving anesthesia and large hollow needles for extracting marrow directly from a donor's hip bone.

Now that apheresis makes donating marrow cells akin to giving plasma, which can already be paid for under the 1984 law, the court saw no logical basis for disallowing payment for it.

More

O Φρίντμαν στη Χιλή

του Αριστείδη Χατζή

Books' Journal
Ιούλιος 2012

Ο διάσημος οικονομολόγος και καθηγητής στο Πανεπιστήμιο του Σικάγο Μίλτον Φρήντμαν επισκέφτηκε το Μάρτιο του 1975 για έξι μέρες τo Σαντιάγο της Χιλής για να δώσει μία σειρά έξι διαλέξεων. Ένα από τα θέματα των διαλέξεων που έδωσε ήταν η στενή σχέση πολιτικής και οικονομικής ελευθερίας. Σύμφωνα με τον Φρήντμαν η οικονομική ελευθερία οδηγεί αναπόφευκτα και στην πολιτική.

Στις 21 Μαρτίου ο Φρήντμαν συνάντησε τον δικτάτορα Αουγκούστο Πινοσέτ και άλλους παράγοντες της χιλιανής κυβέρνησης, μίλησε μαζί τους για 45 λεπτά και ένα μήνα μετά έστειλε στον Πινοσέτ μια επιστολή που περιείχε γραπτά διατυπωμένες τις συμβουλές οικονομικής πολιτικής που έδωσε προφορικά (8 σημεία με κυριότερο την καταπολέμηση του πληθωρισμού). Ένα χρόνο αργότερα ο Φρήντμαν τιμήθηκε με το βραβείο Νόμπελ στην Οικονομική Επιστήμη. Κατά τη διάρκεια της τελετής απονομής του βραβείου ένα μεγάλο πλήθος είχε συγκεντρωθεί για να διαμαρτυρηθεί, κατηγορώντας τον Φρήντμαν για έμμεση νομιμοποίηση του φρικτού δικτατορικού καθεστώτος της Χιλής. Ο λόγος που η επίσκεψη του Φρήντμαν προκάλεσε μεγάλες αντιδράσεις ήταν απλός: ο Φρήντμαν, ήδη από τις αρχές της δεκαετίας του 1960, θεωρούνταν ένας από τους κορυφαίους φιλελεύθερους διανοούμενους.

Ο ίδιος ο Φρήντμαν, σε κείμενό του στο περιοδικό Newsweek τον Ιούνιο του 1976 δικαιολόγησε την επίσκεψή του ως εξής: «Παρά τη βαθύτατη διαφωνία μου με το αυταρχικό πολιτικό σύστημα της Χιλής, δεν θεωρώ ότι είναι κακό ένας οικονομολόγος να προσφέρει εξειδικευμένες οικονομικές συμβουλές στη Χιλιανή Κυβέρνηση όπως δεν θα θεωρούσα κακό ένας γιατρός να της προσφέρει εξειδικευμένες ιατρικές συμβουλές με σκοπό να βοηθήσει στην αντιμετώπιση μιας επιδημίας». Πριν την επίσκεψη του Φρήντμαν και πριν καν την ανατροπή του Αλιέντε, μια μεγάλη ομάδα νεαρών οικονομολόγων από χώρες της Λατινικής Αμερικής (κυρίως Χιλιανοί και Βραζιλιάνοι) είχαν σπουδάσει στο Πανεπιστήμιο του Σικάγο και επέστρεψαν για να εφαρμόσουν τις ιδέες που διδάχθηκαν, λαμβάνοντας συχνά ακόμα και υψηλές κυβερνητικές θέσεις. Οι Chicago Boys της Χιλής - και όχι η Χιλιανή Κυβέρνηση - ήταν αυτοί που προσκάλεσαν τον Φρήντμαν το Μάρτιο του 1975, αν και δεν ήταν αυτός ο μέντοράς τους, αλλά ένας συνάδελφός του, ο Άρνολντ Χάρμπεργκερ. Ο Χάρμπεργκερ συνόδευσε τον Φρήντμαν στη Χιλή αλλά δεν ήταν το ίδιο διάσημος για να αποτελέσει στόχο.

Έχει ενδιαφέρον ότι μέχρι και σήμερα η επίσκεψη του Φρήντμαν στη Χιλή απασχολεί τόσο πολύ όσους θέλουν να επιτεθούν στο φιλελευθερισμό ή στη Σχολή του Σικάγο. Παρά τα 37 χρόνια που πέρασαν, κανείς δεν φαίνεται να έχει ξεχάσει αυτή την επίσκεψη, αλλά κανείς δεν φαίνεται να θυμάται ότι ο Φρήντμαν δεν επισκέφτηκε μόνο τη Χιλή αλλά επίσης την Ανατολική Ευρώπη και τρεις φορές (!) την Κίνα, προσκεκλημένος μάλιστα της Κινεζικής Κυβέρνησης. Τα εγκλήματα του Πινοσέτ αποτελούν παρωνυχίδα μπροστά στα εγκλήματα κατά της ανθρωπότητας της κομμουνιστικής Κίνας του Μάο, που αποτελεί σήμερα τη μεγαλύτερη δικτατορία του πλανήτη. Η επίσκεψη του Φρήντμαν στην Κίνα όμως δεν φάνηκε να ενοχλεί και τόσο αν και ο Φρήντμαν έκανε στην Κίνα ακριβώς ότι έκανε και στη Χιλή, προσπάθησε να προωθήσει μεταρρυθμίσεις φιλελευθεροποίησης της οικονομίας - ενώ οι Κινέζοι Chicago Boys είναι πλέον πολλαπλάσιοι των Χιλιανών. Ο ίδιος ο Φρήντμαν απορούσε και αγανακτούσε γι’ αυτήν τη διαφορετική μεταχείριση δύο παρόμοιων ταξιδιών του. Ακόμα και σήμερα όμως κανείς δεν ενδιαφέρεται για τα ταξίδια και τις επαφές του στην Κίνα ή σε χώρες του υπάρξαντος σοσιαλισμού.

Πολύ μεγαλύτερο ενδιαφέρον δε, έχει η άριστη μνήμη των Ελλήνων για την επίσκεψη του Φρήντμαν στη Χιλή. Δεν υπάρχει μέρα που δεν θα διαβάσω μια αναφορά στην επίσκεψή του σε κάποια εφημερίδα ή blog. Αυτή η εντυπωσιακά καλή μνήμη όμως είναι εξόχως επιλεκτική: Δεν φαίνεται να θυμάται κανείς ποιος ήταν ο πρώτος Ευρωπαίος Πρωθυπουργός που επισκέφτηκε την Πολωνία μετά το στρατιωτικό πραξικόπημα προσφέροντάς του νομιμοποίηση. Δεν φαίνεται να θυμάται κανείς τις συναναστροφές της ελληνικής πολιτικής τάξης, δημοσιογράφων και διανοούμενων με σφαγείς περιωπής όπως ο Καντάφι, ο Σαντάμ, ο Τσαουσέσκου, ο Μιλόσεβιτς, ο Άσαντ, ο Κιμ Ιλ Σουνγκ, αλλά και με όλους σχεδόν τους πιθανούς και απίθανους δικτάτορες (να μην ξεχάσουμε να δούμε και στο Youtube τους guest stars στην κηδεία του Εμβέρ Χότζα). Δεν φαίνεται να θυμάται κανείς τη συμμετοχή ελλήνων (ως φυσικών και ηθικών αυτουργών) στη σφαγή της Σρεμπρένιτσα. Δεν φαίνεται να θυμάται κανείς τους έλληνες ποιητές, καλλιτέχνες και διανοούμενους που υμνούσαν τα τανκς της Βουδαπέστης και της Πράγας, το Τείχος του Βερολίνου, τον Στάλιν και τον Μάο (που τα εγκλήματά τους θα έκαναν και τον Χίτλερ να ζηλέψει). Ούτε φαίνεται να κάνει και τόση εντύπωση η διαρκής λατρεία προς τον Φιντέλ Κάστρο, τον πάνω από 50 χρόνια (!) δικτάτορα της Κούβας – με εκτελέσεις, φρικτά βασανιστήρια, φυλακίσεις, εξορίες και αναρίθμητες παραβιάσεις των ανθρωπίνων δικαιωμάτων στο ενεργητικό του.

Δεν χρειάζεται νομίζω να αναρωτηθούμε γιατί υπάρχει τόση ευαισθησία για τον Φρήντμαν και τόσος στρουθοκαμηλισμός για όλους τους άλλους. Ως γνωστόν οι δικτάτορες αντιμετωπίζονται με ιδεολογικά μέτρα και σταθμά. Αν είναι ιδεολογικά συγγενείς με την Αριστερά τότε μπορούν να εκτελούν, εξορίζουν, ανασκολοπίζουν και γενικά να ενεργούν ελεύθερα. Πάντα θα υπάρχουν «ειδικές περιστάσεις» που θα δικαιολογούν τις άρρωστες πράξεις τους:

Ο Μάο εκτιμούσε ότι αυτό που κάνει είναι ένα βήμα προς τη σοσιαλιστική κοινωνία. Και πίστευε ότι ο σκοπός αγιάζει τα μέσα. Αλλά, ο σκοπός του, η πρόθεσή του ήταν καλή. […] Μπορεί τα κομμουνιστικά καθεστώτα να είχαν αυτό το τεράστιο έλλειμμα ελευθερίας, αλλά τουλάχιστον είχαν στο κέντρο της σκέψης τους τον άνθρωπο.

Ο Έλληνας πολιτικός που ξεστόμισε αυτές τις ανιστόρητες αηδίες, πρόσφατα, παρολίγον να γίνει και πρωθυπουργός. Σχεδόν κανείς δεν θυμάται σήμερα, αν και πέρασαν τέσσερα μόλις χρόνια, αυτόν τον θλιβερό ύμνο του σε έναν αιμοσταγή δικτάτορα. Θυμούνται όμως όλοι φυσικά τον …Φρήντμαν που πήγε στη Χιλή (αλλά όχι τον Φρήντμαν που πήγε στην Κίνα διότι εκεί έσφαζαν, βασάνιζαν και εξόντωναν «έχοντας στο κέντρο της σκέψης τους τον άνθρωπο»).

Τα πράγματα λοιπόν είναι απλά. Η επίσκεψη του Φρήντμαν αποτέλεσε μια ιδανική ευκαιρία να ξεσπαθώσουν όλοι οι εχθροί του φιλελευθερισμού και να του χρεώσουν ακόμα και το προπατορικό αμάρτημα. Το ότι οι ίδιοι βέβαια συνεχίζουν να λατρεύουν και να δικαιολογούν τις πράξεις κάθε αιματοβαμμένο δικτάτορα δεν ενοχλεί διόλου.

Ωστόσο ο Φρήντμαν πήγε στη Χιλή. Ο άνθρωπος που συνέδεσε τον εαυτό του με την αναγέννηση του φιλελευθερισμού και τις πιο ριζοσπαστικές φιλελεύθερες ιδέες (κατάργηση υποχρεωτικής στράτευσης, αποποινικοποίηση χρήσης ναρκωτικών, ελάχιστο εγγυημένο εισόδημα) έκανε ένα σοβαρό λάθος. Ενώ γνώριζε ότι η οικονομική ελευθερία οδηγεί αναπόφευκτα και στην πολιτική, με την επίσκεψή του φάνηκε να τα αποσυνδέει, έστω προσωρινά. Ενώ πήγε στη Χιλή, δεν χρησιμοποίησε την ευκαιρία για να μιλήσει για τα δικαιώματα και τις πολιτικές ελευθερίες αλλά μόνο για την απελευθέρωση της οικονομίας. Αυτό ήταν ένα απαράδεκτο λάθος – δύο φορές λάθος - γιατί δεν το έκανε οποιοσδήποτε αλλά ο ίδιος ο Μίλτον Φρήντμαν. Είναι ένα λάθος που δεν θα πρέπει κανείς φιλελεύθερος να το ξεχάσει. Για να μην ξαναγίνει ποτέ.


Για την δράση των Chicago Boys στη Χιλή δες κυρίως Juan Gabriel Valdés, Pinochet’s Economists: The Chicago School on Chile. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1995. Ιδιαίτερο ενδιαφέρον έχει και η περιγραφή των γεγονότων από τον ίδιο τον Friedman στην αυτοβιογραφία του: Milton and Rose D. Friedman, Two Lucky People (Memoirs). Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998 (κεφ. 24). Δείτε επίσης αυτό το πολύ ενδιαφέρον απόσπασμα από το ντοκυμαντέρ των Daniel Yergin και Joseph Stanislaw, The Commanding Heights: The Battle for the World Economy (1998)

* Ο Αριστείδης Χατζής είναι Αναπληρωτής Καθηγητής Φιλοσοφίας Δικαίου & Θεωρίας Θεσμών στο Τμήμα Μεθοδολογίας, Ιστορίας & Θεωρίας της Επιστήμης του Πανεπιστημίου Αθηνών. Από το 1993 έως το 1999 σπούδασε θεωρία δικαίου και οικονομική ανάλυση του δικαίου στο Πανεπιστήμιο του Σικάγο, από όπου έλαβε και το διδακτορικό του.

Εδώ θα βρείτε τη δημοσιευμένη μορφή του κειμένου σε PDF για ευκολότερη εκτύπωση

Διαβάστε επίσης:

• ένα σχετικό κείμενό μου για το "Δόγμα της Άγνοιας" (Books' Journal, Οκτώβριος 2011)
• ένα ενδιαφέρον κείμενο του Brian Doherty, "The Economist and the Dictator" (Reason, Dec. 15, 2006)
• ένα πρόσφατο κείμενο για την επιτυχία της πολιτικής των Chicago Boys στη Χιλή ("The remarkable story of Chile’s economic renaissance")
• και στο ίδιο τεύχος του Books' Journal ένα ακόμα άρθρο για την οικογένεια Friedman από τον Γιώργο Σαρηγιαννίδη (Books' Journal, Ιούλιος 2012)