[James Gillray, ”More PIGS than TEATS, or the new Litter of hungry Grunters sucking John Bull’s old Sow to death” (1806)]

Note: This is part of a collection of posts on “The Current State of Liberty and the Threats it faces”.

In Part 1 I discussed state expenditure now and historically in “The Threats to Liberty Part 1: Government Expenditure” (29 June, 2022) here.

In this post I want to discuss “The Size and Power of the State” by looking at a few indicators concerning public sector employment and the bureaucratic structure of the government, especially in Australia.

The size and power of the state can be measured in a number of ways. In a previous post I listed the following indicators as important:

• how many people worked for the state in institutions such as the military, the courts, the customs service, the police, the diplomatic service, the post office, and so on
• how many people received benefits or privileges from the state in the form of monopolies, subsidies, restrictions on competitors, hand-outs, pensions, “civl lists”, and so on
• how much money was taken by the government from the people in the form of taxes, excise, tariffs, fees, and in kind (such as forced labour)
• how much did the government spend on its various activities in the form of income received from taxes, sales of goods and services from government owned enterprises, fees, and borrowings from government banks (Central banks), private banks and investors.
• how much burden (cost) did the government place on people in the form of prohibitions on work, buying and selling, entering an occupation of one’s choice, and regulations in general
• how many people did the state kill or imprison for engaging in economic and other activities which the state did not approve of

In this post I want to look at how many people work for the state and in what capacity, and how states are organized to employ these people to administer, regulate, and redistribute people, money, and economic activity to achieve its goals.

• How many people work at “the sharp end” of government, i.e. in the military, and how much does the state spend on this
• How many people work for the government in its other capacities, i.e. HEW, regulating private and economic life, and how much does the state spend on this
• How the government is structured to carry out these tasks, i.e. the number of departments and other entities under its control.

Countries Ranked in Size by Total Revenue and Expenditure

This table gives us some idea of which are the biggest and most powerful states on the planet, ranked by total revenue and expenditure. The US is by far the biggest and most powerful state with total expenditure close to $10 trillion; Germany is 3rd with $2 trillion; France 5th with $1.6 trillion; Britain 6th with $1.4 trillion; and Australia is a surprising 12th with close to $600 million.

Military Personnel and Expenditure

One indicator of a country’s power is the size of its military, the number of its military personnel, and how much the state spends on this. The table shows that the US is by the far the most powerful state when it comes to military spending at $801 billion p.a. which is 3.5% of its GDP. Australia comes in at no. 12 with $31 billion p.a. which is 2.0% of its GDP.

A second indicator is the number of military personnel. China and India have the highest number, which is not surprising given the sheer size of their populations. The US is ranked 3rd with 1,388,100 active military, and Australia is ranked 59th with 58,600; NZ is ranked 129th with 9,000 personnel.

Another indicator of military power is the number of times a state interferes militarily in the affairs of other nations. I will not go into this aspect here, only to note that Australia has been very active in fighting alongside Britain and then the US in overseas wars, and in numerous “peace keeping” actions.

Public Sector Employees

State spending on the military used to be the single biggest item in the budget until it was replaced by spending on health, education, and welfare HEW in the 20thC. The dramatic rise in “social spending” (as opposed to “anti-social” spending??) since the 1930s can bee seen in this graph.

In 2016 France spent 31.55% of its GDP on “social spending”; the UK 21.49%; the US 19.32%; and Australia 19.15%.

Another way to measure this is the number of public sector employees as a percentage of the total workforce, shown in this table:

Scandinavian countries, like Norway (35.6%), with a large welfare state rank very high in spite of the fact that other areas of their economic are highly competitive and exposed to the world market. France is also high at 28%; the UK is 21.5%; Australia is 20.4”; the US is 17.6% (although the Mercatus Insitute calculates the level as 19%); and NZ is surprisingly low at 13.4%.

The Public Sector in Australia

Turning to the size of the public sector in Australia the following tables are informative.

The above table shows the number of public sector employees and the total amont spent on their wages/salaries at the Commonwealth, State, and local levels. By far the biggest employer are the states with 1,662,400 employees (led by NSW with 495,900 employees, followed by Victoria with 399,600 employees), and with the Commonwealth employing a relatively modest number of 247,600. The total number of public sector employees in Australia is 2,100,800 which cost the Australian taxpayers a total of about $183 billion out of total revenue of $593.2 billion or 31%.

The breakdown of where these public sector employees work is interesting:

This table shows that the majority are employed in the following three areas

1. Public administration and safety – 659,800
2. Education and training – 641,100
3. Health care and social assistance – 570,800

for a total of 1,871,700 or 89% of the total.

The Bureaucratic Structure of Government

The millions of public sector workers in Australia, as elsewhere, are organized into a bewildering array of departments, agencies, bodies, and “entities”, the true extent and cost of which are hard to determine. Although there is a huge amount of information is accessible online, it is often hidden in plain sight, buried under mountains of detail, or divided across more than one website. What I would like to know and have more readily available in one location is the following:

• how many and what kind of government entities exist and what they do exactly do
• how many people work for them and how much do they cost
• what are the salaries and benefits of those at the highest levels

For example, I have been able to find three interesting and very densely packed summaries of some of this information. The NSW government provides a “Governance Arrangements Chart” here in PDF; the Commonwealth government provides a “FlipChart” of Commonwealth Government Entities & Companies here of here in PDF; and the Commonwealth’s online “Australian Government Organisations Register (AGOR)” here.

What struck me was the astonishing number of such entities and the complexity of their arrangement / structure.

Below is a small section of the Federal government “Flipchart” as the entire piece is too large to display in a blog post:

The Commonwealth of Australia

We learn that the Commonwealth has 16 Departments or “Portfolios” (NSW on the other hand has “Clusters”) with an additional 4 departments called “Parliamentary Departments”. These Departments are in turn made up of 187 (or 189 depending on the source of information) “Principal Bodies”, which in turn are made up of a total of 1,306 individual bodies.

For example, the AGOR reveals that there are:

• Principal bodies (187 or 14%) – bodies connected with government policies, purposes or services which are prescribed under the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 and the related rules.
• Secondary bodies (677 or 52%) – committees, councils, boards, statutory office holders, consultative bodies and working groups linked to the Australian Government.
• Other bodies (442 or 34%) – Subsidiaries of corporate Commonwealth entities and Commonwealth companies; Joint ventures, partnerships and other companies; National Law bodies; and Bodies linked to the Australian Government through statutory contracts, agreements and delegations.

These in turn were composed of 12 groups of “bodies” known as “governance types” (labelled “A” to “L”):

1. A. Non Corporate Commonwealth Entity – 98
2. B. Corporate Commonwealth Entity – 71
3. C. Commonwealth Company – 18
4. D. Advisory Body – Policy and Stakeholder Consultation – 284
5. E. Statutory Office Holder Offices and Committees – 224
6. F. Non-Statutory Function with Separate Branding – 34
7. G. Ministerial Councils and Related Bodies including those Established by the COAG – 59
8. H. Inter Jurisdictional and International Bodies – 76
9. I. Subsidiaries of Corporate Commonwealth Entities and Commonwealth Companies – 118
10. J. Joint Ventures, Partnerships and Interests in Other Companies – 234
11. K. National Law Bodies – 26
12. L. Bodies Linked to the Australian Government through Statutory Contracts Agreements and Delegations – 64

For a total number of “bodies” – 1,306.

The State Government of NSW

Similarly with the image of the NSW “Governance Arrangements Chart”, since it too big and complex to display in a blog post, here is a snippet:

Concerning the NSW government (with the help of the Wikipedia article “List of New South Wales government agencies” here) we learn that it is bureaucratically organised into 10 “clusters” or “super” ministries, which include (the clusters in quote marks have especially inappropriate names):

1. Premier and Cabinet – 3,835 employees
2. Regional NSW – 4,428
3. Enterprise, Investment and Trade – ?
4. Treasury – 2,293
5. Health – 124,086
6. Education – 110,507
7. “Stronger Communities” – 52,342
8. Transport – 26,454
9. “Customer Service” – 8,210
10. Planning and Environment – 16,103

which in turn are made up of the following components:

1. 39 departments, which are the lead agencies in each cluster
2. 28 executive agencies, which are agencies related to the departments
3. 4 “other services”, which include the large “Health Service” (127,156 employees), NSW Police Force (21,879 employees), the “Teaching Service” (99,702 employees), and the “Transport Service” (13,645 employees)
4. 19 separate agencies, which operate independently of departments but can still be within clusters
5. 8 state-owned corporations
6. 10 universities (37,238 employees)
7. statutory authorities, which are established under legislation but sit outside clusters
8. subsidiaries of the NSW Government established under the Corporations Act
9. councils under the Local Government Act (possibly 54,900 employees)

[The British Atlas holding up the Political Establishment.]

Note:

1. This is part of a collection of posts on “The Current State of Liberty and the Threats it faces”.
2. This is part 2 of a two-part post on “The Big Picture”. See part 1

7.) We need to show the public in a more convincing way the very considerable achievements of CL over the past 200 years

We need to show the public in a more convincing way the very considerable achievements of CL over the past 200 years. The achievements of CL have been enormous since CL first began challenging the Old Order of the monarchical/absolutist state (Throne) and the established church (Altar) in the 17th century, with most of its successes coming in the late 18th century (the American and French revolutions) and their aftermath in the 19th century.

These achievements can be summarized as the Great Emancipation, and the Great Enrichment. As a result of CL reforms and revolutions much of western Europe, America, and the English colonies were emancipated:

1. from coerced labour such as slavery and serfdom (abolition)
2. from the arbitrary authority of kings and princes (constitutional limits to state power, the rule of law, freedom of speech, low taxation)
3. from “cruel & unusual punishment”, such as torture, the death penalty, arrest without court order, imprisonment without trial (trial by jury, independent judiciary, habeas corpus, punishments which “fit the crime”)
4. from violations of property rights (legal protection of property, enforcement of contracts)
5. from the arbitrary power of the Church (freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom from paying compulsory tithes)
6. from restrictions and bans on associating with others on a voluntary basis (marriage and divorce laws, private clubs and associations (“civil society”))
7. from restrictions on trade and industrial activity (free trade and deregulation, freedom to enter and practice a profession or trade)
8. from restrictions on the movement of people, goods, and capital (freedom to move within the country, freedom to emigrate, free trade)
9. from strict limits on who could participate in political activity such as voting and standing for election (democracy, freedom of association, freedom of speech)
10. from war and conscription into the army (peace, low taxes and debt, laws of warfare, international arbitration)

The great emancipation led directly to an explosion of wealth creation (market driven innovation, greater productivity of free production and free trade) which in turn led to longer life expectancy, lower infant morality (and childbirth deaths of mothers), reduction of disease, less demanding physical labour (mechanization), and greater home comforts for the first time in human history, especially for ordinary working people (piped water, sewers, heating, light). Although these emancipations and enrichment completely transformed European and American society and laid the foundation for our modern world they were left incomplete and unfinished, and, as a result, other ideologies less friendly, even very hostile to CL, have become dominant (socialism, welfare statism, fascism/populism).

Also see these related posts:

1. “A Balance Sheet of the Success and Failures of Classical Liberalism” (21 Apr. 2022) here

8.) We need to be honest with ourselves about the failures of CL and the incomplete nature of the “liberal emancipation project”

We need to be honest with ourselves about the failures of CL and the incomplete nature of the “liberal emancipation project”. In spite of the considerable successes of the liberal “emancipation project” and the ensuing “great enrichment”, much was left undone, unfinished, and incomplete, which left the political and intellectual door open for other political ideologies to step in. These competing ideologies which replaced liberalism were nationalism and “social democracy” (interventionism), both of which had moderate and more extreme (i.e. violent and coercive) versions. These failures can be summarized as the inconsistent application of basic liberal principles, some complacency about the inevitability of liberal reform, several weaknesses or gaps in economic theory to explain certain problems, considerable political naïveté, and the loss of what had once been an inspiring liberal “vision” of the kind of society they wanted to create.

The emancipation project was left incomplete. This was a result of the inconsistent application of basic liberal principles to all members of society. The most glaring examples of this were unequal economic and political rights for women, indigenous people or ex-slaves, and gays and lesbians. Furthermore, the fact that there could be a group who could call themselves “liberal imperialists”, given the violence and privilege inherent in they way in which colonies and empires were created and maintained, suggests liberalism was changing into something which would soon become unrecognizable to its radical and even moderate founders. There was also a strong attitude of complacency about how the liberal project would continue as a result of the inevitable “evolution” of societies and institutions to an ever more “advanced” and liberal form. Why should liberals struggle to spread liberal ideas and practices if “evolution” would do this for them? and why even bother when it came to the “inferior” races and cultures who were literally the “subject” of the European Christian “civilizing mission”?

CL political and economic theory suffered from several weaknesses or gaps which made it difficult to understand or solve certain problems. We have already mentioned the problems posed by exaggerating the extent of and misunderstanding the reasons for “market failure”, and the related problem of ignoring the extent of and reasons for “government failure”. These theoretical problems would only be explained by developments in liberal political economic theory in the 20th century with the emergence of the Austrian and Public Choices schools of economic. Perhaps the most serious theoretical problem for CLs was their inability to offer a good explanation for the repeated occurence of the business cycle with its boom and bust, with the latter causing economic depressions and so much suffering for the poor and working classes. This theoretical failure meant that alternative theories such as the “new liberal” theory of “underconsumption” (Hobson) or the Marxist theory of the inevitable collapse of capitalism as monopoly and ruthless competition destroyed it from within, became increasingly attractive to workers, intellectuals, and politicians.

A more “political” weakness in CL theory was the tendency to view “democracy” as an end in itself rather than as a means to achieve other liberal ends such as the protection of life, liberty and property, and holding elected politicians accountable for their behaviour. In the late 18th and early 19th centuries liberals, especially republican liberals in America, saw democracy as a means of removing entrenched political elites who used the political system for their own ends at the expense of “the people” (i.e the ordinary working and tax-paying people). However, gradually democracy as a “process” came to be regarded as desirable in itself, and that it should be applied to more and more aspects of social and economic life. The end result would be a system where the “will of the people” should be consulted before any group decision could be made concerning every or nearly every social and economic arrangement individuals might wish to engage in.

At a more theoretical and philosophical level, we have the weakening and eventual abandonment of a belief in natural rights as the proper grounds for believing in “the right” individual had to their life, liberty, and property, and to be left alone by the government to exercise these rights, so long as they respected the “equal right” of others to their life, liberty, and property. By the late 19thC the theory of utilitarianism (Bentham, James Mill, and J.S. Mill) had replaced the natural law / natural rights perspective, with the added twist that utilitarian-minded politicians and bureaucrats could and should decide what activities or policies “maximized” a society’s “utility” or “happiness”, even if this meant taking or regulating the life, liberty, and property of some, if it could be “shown” that doing so would increase the total amount of utility / happiness of the majority. The end point would be reached when people believed that if individuals had any “rights” at all, they were the creation of “the government” or “the law” and thus were not an inherent part of what it meant to be a human being, and did not exist prior to the formation of government. Thus, these “rights” could be suspended or revoked at any time based upon the assessment of politicians and bureaucrats that in doing so the “welfare of the people” would be served. We saw this clearly during the Covid19 lockdowns and bans on travel, association, and commercial activity throughout the western world during 2020-22.

Many CLs were politically naive by placing considerable faith in the benevolence and omniscience of the state and its officials to solve pressing social and economic problems. [See the section above on “government failure” for details.] They expressed a similar faith in the ability and willingness of the “middling class” to make democracy work once they were granted the right to vote (after 1832 in Britain). Many CLs had doubts about the ability of the working class to behave “responsibly” if they were given the right to vote given their lack of education, “fickleness”, and susceptibility to being bribed by ruthless politicians. However, as democracy matured during the course of the 19thC it became clear that the middle class behaved exactly the way they had previously thought the working class would behave: they were easily misled and deceived by ruthless politicians, they voted for politicians who promised to give them “something for nothing,” and many from their ranks actively sought out other benefits from the state by lobbying for jobs and contracts. The net result is what we see today, the new democratic state was “captured” by vested interests, both old established groups who learned to adapt to and manipulate democratic institutions, as well as the newly enfranchised groups (business organisations, trade unions).

One reason why the newly enfranchised groups behaved this way was their ignorance of basic economic principles. Some of the liberal political economists tried to rectify this problem by attempting to explain basic economic ideas simply to the ordinary person via articles in the press. The most notable example of this was Frédéric Bastiat during the 1840s with his dozens of articles in which he debunked the “economic sophisms” commonly used to defend tariff protection, subsidies to industry, and handouts for the people. He failed in this task then, just as CLs today have failed to educate the public about these very same issues. Sometimes I feel that we have been trapped in a kind of “ideological Groundhog Day” where we have to keep repeating day after day the same arguments for liberty and against government intervention with no apparent success.

The “Loss” of the Intellectuals to Socialism. The group which might have persuaded the ordinary person of the moral and economic benefits of free markets were the “intellectuals”. However as the 19th century wore on the intellectual class increasingly moved away from CL and adopted socialist, nationalist, or other statist beliefs instead. Why the CL movement “lost” the intellectual class to socialism and statism in the late 19th century, and which still continues today, is an important question which modern day CLs still have to find an answer to and a way to reverse the situation. A common response is that the uncertainties of making a living in a free market where one’s work is only rewarded if consumers value your work enough to voluntarily pay for it, drove intellectuals into the apparently more certain and predictable arms of the state which provided them with secure jobs in the administration or the state funded academy. Another explanation is that intellectuals adopted the old aristocratic disdain for “productive labour” and did not want “to dirty their hands” with commerce. Why this was the case is unclear.

CLs lost their “Vision” of what a free society should be like, why this was desirable, and thus “lost” the moral high ground to the socialists and statists. Their loss of vision made their ideology less attractive to the young, who found an alternate and more attractive and inspiring vision in socialism/Marxism, nationalism, and fascism, and now environmentalism. One of the reasons why radical liberals in the late 18th and early 19th century were able to put forward an inspiring vision of what emancipation might achieve, and thus attract many people to the CL cause, was their passionate sense of justice, or rather their hatred of the injustice which they could see all around them. This passion came out in their polemical writing, best exemplified by Thomas Paine whose “Common Sense” (1776) and “The Rights of Man” (1791) inspired CLs on both sides of the Atlantic. Who in the late 19th century was writing similar inspiring essays to attract a new general of young people to CL? Very few – perhaps only the aging members of the last generation of “old liberals” like Gustave de Molinari (1819-1912) and Auberon Herbert (1838-1906). This loss of “vision” was pointed out by Friedrich Hayek, James Buchanan, Murray Rothbard, and Robert Nozick in the second half of the 20th century, and again by Richard Ebeling and Peter Boettke in the 21st.

Also see these related posts:

1. “Classical Liberal Visions of the Future I” (27 August, 2021) here
2. “Classical Liberal Visions of the Future II: The Contribution of Gustave de Molinari (1819-1912)” (29 Aug. 2021) here
3. “Classical Liberal Visions of the Future III: Liberal Experiments, Frameworks, and Archipelagos” (11 Oct. 2021) here
4. “Hayek on a Liberal Utopia” (11 Sept. 2021) here

9.) We need to be clear eyed about what still needs to be done if we truly wish to complete this great “liberal emancipation project” FOR ALL PEOPLE

We need to be clear eyed about what still needs to be done if we truly wish to complete this great “liberal emancipation project” FOR ALL PEOPLE. In my view CLs need to do the following things:

To complete the liberal “emancipation project” for all individuals. The “great emancipation” seemed to have stalled sometime in the late 19thC before its work had been completed. We need to restart the engine and make sure this time it gets applied to all groups equally, regardless of gender, race, or nationality.

To remove all the remaining impediments to the full flowering of “the great enrichment”. Similarly, the other great project of CL reform and betterment, the “great enrichment,” has stalled in the west (especially in Europe) and is hampered in other parts of the world by the clumsy and heavy handed approach taken by interventionist governments in places like India and China. We need to remove all the remaining impediments to the full flowering of “the great enrichment” so that all people everywhere can benefit.

To remove the institutional incentives which encourage predation (both private and public). We need to reform or abolish political institutions in order to remove the incentives which encourage “predation” – both public and private. The great temptation for “predators” of all kinds is the enormous wealth which the state controls and can dispense to the well-connected few, or the most vocal voter blocks during election campaigns. To remove the temptation we need to cut the resources which the state can dispense, this means drastically cutting taxes and the size and power of the administrative and welfare state.

To challenge the ideological arguments used to legitimize / justify this predation and redistribution of wealth. These arguments are put forward by academics, intellectuals, and the press, and are widely shared by educated people. CLs need to offer counter arguments (which they have done for a couple of centuries) and to present them in a way which will win back the intellectual class to the cause of liberty. How best to do this is open to discussion.

To find a solution to the serious political problem of dependency on the state. This dependency has taken the form of the large number of people who work directly for the state (“civil servants”), those individuals and firms which sell their goods and services to the state, those individuals and firms who have been given special privileges or monopolies from the state in order to earn a living, and those who are dependent on state transfer payments to survive (pensions, medicare, income support, unemployment benefits). Because so many people have now become dependent on, or beneficiaries of, the modern state the return to Liberty in a democracy has become a very difficult, perhaps impossible task. A tipping point of “no return” may well be reached when the number of voters who are dependent on the state for all or a large part of their income is greater than 50%. This will means that it becomes increasingly difficult for a CL party to persuade voters to cut or end their own source of income and financial support.

Conclusion

My quite depressing, but I think realistic, conclusion is the following:

1.) There has been a collapse / failure of the Liberty movement in the 20th & 21st centuries (both ideologically & politically). The rot within CL became apparent towards the end of the 19thC with the emergence of a “new liberalism” which accepted the need for the creation of a large and powerful welfare and regulatory state. After a period of near total eclipse of the Liberty movement during the Thirty Years War of the 20thC (1914-1945) there was an attempt to revive CL (the Mont Pelerin Society in 1947) which had some limited political success in the 1970s and 1980s (Thatcher and Reagan) before petering out. All so-called “liberal parties” today are dominated by “neo-liberals” whom I believe are “no-liberals” at all, i.e. they are LINOs (liberal in name only). Both the major blocks of political parties all support a form of “social democracy”, i.e. a form of “socialist” or “interventionist” democracy.

The revival of CL has been more marked in the ideological realm, where we have never seen so many CL scholars, intellectuals, and policy analysts and activists, which bodes well for the future. The problem seems to be the mismatch between the ideological growth of CL on the one hand and political failure of “liberal” parities (or advocates of Liberty within these existing parties) on the other hand.

2.) The rise of the modern warfare / welfare / regulatory / Keynesian / surveillance / hygiene state is unprecedented and seemingly unstoppable. The nearly universal “first response” of voters and governments to “crises” (whether real or manufactured) is to call for the government “to do something”. There is a majority who believe in the legitimacy and ability of “experts” to provide solutions to these crises and to implement them by any means possible. Far too many of those who expressed support for free markets and individual liberty abandoned their liberal principles and joined the statist band-wagon, thus severely weakening the Liberty movement. The most recent “crises” I have in mind are the terrorist attacks of 9/11 2001, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq (2001, 2003), the Global Financial Crisis 2008, the Covid19 panic and lockdowns of 2019, and the ever growing “Global Climate Catastrophe”.

3.) So many people have become dependent on, or beneficiaries of, the modern state that the return to Liberty is a very difficult, perhaps impossible task. In democracies like ours we are seeing the convergence of two forces which work in favour of the state and its power. The first is ideological, where a majority of the people are hostile to free markets and support government intervention; the second is political, where a very large percentage (perhaps eventually a majority) of voters are dependent on the state for all or most of their income and act politically (electorally) to protect this interest. When the two forces pushing to maintain or expand the power of the state meet, CLs face a very, very difficult task if they wish to reverse course.

4.) There are serious practical / political problems in creating a “limited (protective) government” and then keeping this government truly “limited” over time. I believe this is a problem CLs have not faced up to adequately in the past and still do not have a satisfactory solution. The history of the Liberty movement shows us that there have been successful efforts to turn a big “predatory” State into a limited “protective” State. [See above for specific examples.] However the events of the 20thC and the first two decades of the 21stC have also shown us how a “limited government” can slowly but steadily become increasingly “unlimited”. This process of the expansion of state power is the result of another convergence of interests: the demands of the electorate, lobby groups, and rent-seekers who want government solutions to their problems, and the ambitious and self-interested behaviour of politicians and bureaucrats who step forward to provide these solutions and advance their careers at the same time. The traditional response of CLs has been that the power of the state can be kept in check by the following four things:

1. constitutional limits on the actions of the state,
2. a vigilant high or constitutional court to enforce these limits,
3. a vigilant free press to expose and denounce those who violate these limits to power, and
4. a vigilant and informed electorate who will vote to protect Liberty.

I think the course of the last century has shown how weak these four components to limiting the power of the state have been. “Vigilance” seems to have turned into “negligence.” How these limiting forces might be revived , or replaced by something else, is moot.

Atlas may eventually shrug, or he may not. Only time will tell.

[Australia peeping through the clouds.]

Note:

1. This is part of a collection of posts on “The Current State of Liberty and the Threats it faces”.
2. This is part 1 of a two-part post on “The Big Picture”. See part 2

Below is a sketch of what I consider to be the “Big Picture” of where the modern CL movement is at the moment, what it has achieved in the past, and the problems it faces if it wishes to progress in the future. There are also links to related posts which explore some of these matters in more detail. It covers the following points:

1. CL has a long tradition of defending individual liberty and opposing injustice and the abuse of state power
2. Over four centuries CL has evolved into a coherent theory of individual liberty with four major dimensions (personal, economic, political, and legal freedoms)
3. The traditional Left-Right political spectrum clouds the ideological situation and misunderstands what CL is and its relationship with other ideologies
4. There are several ongoing problems for CLs in agreeing about the legitimate size and power of the state, with different views held by radical, moderate, and “new” liberals
5. We need to show the public in a more convincing way the benefits of Liberty and the harms caused by State Coercion
6. We need to show the public in a more convincing way the harms caused by State Coercion and Intervention in the economy
7. We need to show the public in a more convincing way the very considerable achievements of CL over the past 200 years
8. We need to be honest with ourselves about the failures of CL and the incomplete nature of the “liberal emancipation project”
9. We need to be clear eyed about what still needs to be done if we truly wish to complete this great “liberal emancipation project” FOR ALL PEOPLE

1.) CL has a long tradition of defending individual liberty and opposing injustice and the abuse of state power

CL has a long tradition of defending individual liberty and opposing injustice and the abuse of state power and we should be proud of this achievement. Individual liberty and prosperity have been expanded by a combination of violence and peaceful reform going back to the English revolution of the 1640s. For example:

• Violence was resorted to in revolutions in which CLs (or rather “proto-liberals”) such as the English revolution in the 1640s, the American Revolution in the 1770s and 1780s; the French Revolution of the late 1780s and 1790s (before reform was hijacked by the Jacobins and then Napoleon); the 1848 revolutions; and the “velvet revolution” of the early 1990s in Eastern Europe).
• “Indirect” violence was used in the form of organized public protests (“bottom up” reform) which put “pressure” on governments to make reforms. One of the best examples of this was the opposition to the protectionist Corn Laws in the late 1830s and early 1840s organized by Richard Cobden and John Bright through the Anti-Corn Law League
• And there was piece-meal peaceful reforms by liberal governments (“top down” reform) such as the Liberal Party in Britain in the second half of the 19th century. The Party steadily chipped away the crust of privilege over several decades resulting in a very free society (at least domestically) on the eve of WW1. The situation in the Empire was another matter.

A key feature of CL reform was what I call its “ideology of emancipation” of all people from the individuals, groups (classes), and organisations which used coercion to violate their rights to life, liberty, and property. In spite of considerable successes over the past 200 years, unfortunately this program of emancipation has been left unfinished.

Also see these related posts:

1. “The History of Classical Liberalism in 1,730 words (and one picture)” (12 Apr. 2022) here
2. “Classical Liberal Movements: A Four Hundred Year History” (17 Aug. 2021) here
3. “Classical Liberalism as a Revolutionary Ideology of Emancipation” (13 Oct. 2021) here

2.) Over four centuries CL has evolved into a coherent theory of individual liberty with four major dimensions

Over four centuries CL has evolved into a coherent theory of individual liberty with four major dimensions, namely a “bundle” of personal, economic, political, and legal freedoms which, when combined, make up a consistent theory of liberty. A few radical liberals understood this very well, such as the French political economist Frédéric Bastiat who expressed it as follows, that “Liberty is the SUM of ALL these freedoms” [“The Law” (June 1850)]:

Et qu’est-ce que la Liberté, ce mot qui a la puissance de faire battre tous les cœurs et d’agiter le monde, si ce n’est l’ensemble de toutes les libertés, liberté de conscience, d’enseignement, d’association, de presse, de locomotion, de travail, d’échange ; d’autres termes, le franc exercice, pour tous, de toutes les facultés inoffensives ; en d’autres termes encore, la destruction de tous les despotismes, même le despotisme légal, et la réduction de la Loi à sa seule attribution rationnelle, qui est de régulariser le Droit individuel de légitime défense ou de réprimer l’injustice.

And what is “Liberty,” this word that has the power of making all hearts beat faster and of moving the entire)world, if it is not the sum of all freedoms? — freedom of conscience, teaching, and association, freedom of the press, freedom to travel, work, and trade, in other words, the free exercise by all people of all their non-aggressive abilities . And, in still other terms, isn’t freedom the destruction of all despotic regimes, even legal despotism, and the limiting of the law to its sole rational function which is to regulate the individual’s right of legitimate self-defense and to prevent injustice?

This multi-dimensional nature of CL is one of the things which makes it unique when compared to other political ideologies. Another is the willingness of the older CL school to place a high value on consistency in their principles. The lack of consistency is one of the great failings of the modern “neo-liberal” version of liberalism, in which there is a smorgasbord approach to both ideology and policy – there is little bit of economic freedom (but not too much), there is a little bit of personal freedom (but not too much), and so on.

Also see these related posts:

1. “Twelve Key Concepts of Liberty” (25 Apr. 2022) here
2. “The Multi-Dimensionality of Classical Liberalism” (19 April, 2022) here
3. “Liberty as the Sum of All Freedoms” (26 April, 2022) here
4. “How Modern Day CL/Libertarians Differ From “Classical” Classical Liberals” (24 Aug. 2021) here
5. “The Incoherence and Contradictions inherent in Modern Liberal Parties (and one in particular)” (21 Oct. 2021) here
6. “On the (im)Possibility of finding a “Third Way” between Liberalism and Socialism” (19 Apr. 2022) here

3.) The traditional Left-Right political spectrum clouds the ideological situation

The traditional Left-Right political spectrum clouds the ideological situation and misunderstands what CL is and its relationship with other ideologies. A better way to understand the diversity of political and economic thought is a new Left-Right spectrum with the logical endpoints being complete “Liberty” in all dimensions (on the “Left”) and total “Power” (on the “Right”). This 1-dimensional representation also clearly shows the differences in views held by different kinds of liberals almost from the very beginning:

1. “radical” liberals were most hostile to the coercive activities of the state and thus wanted it to be severely rested in its powers or abolished entirely;
2. “moderate liberals” thought the state should be limited only a very few number of functions such as police, defence, and some “public goods”; and
3. the “new liberals” who appeared in the late 19thC (and have come to dominate the modern liberal movement in your own day) accepted a much greater role for the state in the form of a “welfare state” and a “regulatory / administrative” state thus pushing “liberalism” much closer to “social democracy” or “labourism”.

Another way to show the differences and similarities among the various political ideologies is a 2-dimensional “four-quadrant matrix” which plots ideologies along 2 dimensions, namely “economic freedom” along one axis, and “social freedom” along a second axis. This approach shows more clearly the position of CL in relation to other ideologies, who are our ideological “friends” and “foes”, the convergence of the two major parties around the centre since they share so many interventionist and anti-liberal policies, and with whom we might be able to form political alliances and why.

Also see these related posts:

1. “The Spectrum of State Power: or a New Way of Looking at the Political Spectrum” (25 Apr. 2022) here
2. “Plotting Liberty: The Multi-Dimensionality of Classical Liberalism and the Need for a New ‘Left-Right’ Political Spectrum” (17 April, 2022) here

4.) There are ongoing disagreement among CLs about the legitimate size and power of the state

There are several ongoing problems for CLs in agreeing about the legitimate size and power of the state, with different views held by radical, moderate, and “new” liberals. These problems can be categorized as a theoretical problem and as a pair of political problems.

The theoretical problem for CLs has been to agree on exactly how big, powerful, and intrusive (interventionist) the state should be. There was agreement among early liberals that the absolutist and mercantilist states of the 17th and 18th centuries went too far in their exercise of power, but there was little agreement on exactly how many “public goods” the state should provide once the worst excesses of the old regime states had been removed. CLs disagreed about whether the state should provide money, education, and basic welfare for the poor and unemployed, or whether these should all be provided voluntarily by a mixture of charity, non-profit associations, and for-profit undertakings. CLs divided into three camps over this question, with a handful of radical liberals saying there should in effect be no state at all (Molinari, Spencer); a few more advocated an “ultra-minarchist state” which was limited only to police and national defence functions (Bastiat), and the mainstream “moderate liberals” (Smith) arguing for a “minarchist state” which would provide several more public goods. By the end of the 19thC and throughout the 20thC most liberals had gone far beyond the “minarchist” form of limited government and under the banner of the “new liberalism” advocated an interventionist state which was more like that advocated by social democrats.

The political problems concerning a “limited government” were twofold: firstly, how to turn a “big (predatory) state” into a “limited (protective) state”. This is what I call the “initial political problem”. As discussed above, CLs used a combination of violent revolution, popular protest (implied violence), and piecemeal reform to create a number of quite successful relatively “limited governments” in western Europe (Britain and France), north America (the USA and Canada), and in the colonies (such as Australia) during the 19thC.

However, what the experience of the 20thC showed very clearly was that there was another “ongoing political problem”, which was how to keep a “limited government” limited to its cut-down and reduced powers over the longer term. The failure of limited governments to remain limited suggests that this might be the real “utopian” ideal and thus unrealizable, that there are powerful forces at work within all states (including democracies) which are constantly at work to increase the size and power of the state (those who work for it in various capacities), and to use its power to transfer resources (“predation”) from some individuals and groups to others.

We need to understand that we are currently living in a “hybrid system” where there are still considerable (legacy) freedoms which we enjoy and which make possible our high standards of living, but also that there is and has been over decades considerable increases in the power of the state which hampers / impedes the enjoyment of these liberties and the growth of prosperity. Thus the problem we face is twofold, how to protect (and even expand) the liberties we currently enjoy and at the same time, how to reduce the power of the state which hampers or even destroys these liberties and opportunities for wealth creation.

However, the seemingly inexorable rise of the modern warfare / welfare / regulatory / surveillance state in the 20thC is historically unprecedented and at the current moment appears to be unstoppable.

Also see these related posts:

1. “What Classical Liberals were Against” (12 Aug. 2021) here
2. “Classical Liberals on the Size and Functions of the State” (25 Apr. 2022) here
3. “How Modern Day CL/Libertarians Differ From “Classical” Classical Liberals” (24 Aug. 2021) here
4. “On the (im)Possibility of finding a “Third Way” between Liberalism and Socialism” (19 Apr. 2022) here

5.) We need to show the public in a more convincing way the benefits of Liberty and the harms caused by State Coercion

We need to show the public in a more convincing way the benefits of Liberty and the harms caused by State Coercion. To begin with the benefits of liberty, I will briefly summarize them as emancipation, enrichment, individual and social flourishing, placing limits on the power of politicians to cause harm, and enabling the creation of a creative and innovative society.

The Great Emancipation. Liberal ideas and the institutions they inspired / helped create made it possible for a wave of emancipations to sweep the western world which brought an end to a system which gave power and wealth to a privileged few and poverty and oppression to the majority of the people.

The Great Enrichment. Free markets based upon private property, contracts, mutually beneficial cooperation, the division of labour, and free trade made it possible for the “great enrichment” to take place, which brought unheard of prosperity to ordinary people for the first time; the benefits of industrial mass production and innovation which this unleashed are still improving our lives to this day.

Individual and Social Flourishing. Liberty, or to use Milton Friedman’s expression being “free to choose”, makes it possible for individuals to choose and pursue whatever life goals they prefer, to be able to “flourish” and develop as individuals, to choose the people they want to associate with in families or their local communities in order to pursue common goals.

Limiting the Power of Politicians. Political liberty makes it possible for ordinary people (voters) to place a check on the power of politicians and other powerful individuals, to make them be responsible for their actions, and to exercise some control over how the broader community is structured (within the limit of respecting other peoples’ equal rights to life, liberty, and property).

Building a Creative & Innovative Society. A spirit of liberty and toleration creates a society which is creative, innovative, and rich with new ideas, new products, new art and culture, and new opportunities for individuals to pursue as they see fit

Also see these related posts:

1. “Twelve Key Concepts of Liberty” (25 Apr. 2022) here
2. “The Conservative and Revolutionary Faces of Classical Liberalism” (11 Aug. 2021) here
3. “What Classical Liberals were For” (13 Aug. 2021) here
4. “What CLs were For – Part 2: Ends and Means” (19 Oct., 2021) here

6.) We need to show the public in a more convincing way the harms caused by State Coercion and Intervention in the economy

We need to show the public in a more convincing way the harms caused by State Coercion and Intervention in the economy. Just as there are very great benefits to be had from allowing the full development of individual liberty in all its dimensions, there are also very great and inevitable harms and inherent problems in the exercise of political power and interventionism in the economy. I will summarize these as the immorality of coercion, the extent of government failure, the destruction of individual responsibility, the way political power attracts and encourages predation, and the very high risk that state rivalry will lead to war.

The Immorality of Coercion. Government activity is based upon the use of coercion and the violation of individuals’ rights to life, liberty, and property which is immoral. The use of coercion is immoral even if it is done by the state and its agents.

Government Failure. Government failure is ubiquitous and inevitable; it wastes or destroys the wealth of its citizens; each failure has a tendency to lead to new / further interventions which in turn inevitably fail or impose significant costs.

The Destruction of Individual Responsibility. Government activity discourages the development of independent and responsible behavior on the part of individuals , and encourages a spirit of dependency upon the state and the taxpayers who pay for it.

The Attraction of Public Predation. The coercive powers of the state attract individuals who wish to use those powers for their own benefit at the expence of ordinary taxpayers; they thus become “exploiters” of the productive people who generate wealth in a free market system.

State Rivalry and War. Rivalry between states often results in wars which destroy lives and wealth on a massive scale, which violates the liberty of its citizens through conscription into the army and the subordination of economic activity to the needs of the war state; in the nuclear age the scope for mass destruction and killing by states is so vast that it is hard to contemplate.

Part of the problem is the result of two common errors which people make: firstly in grossly exaggerating the problem of “market failure” and secondly, almost entirely ignoring the problem of “government failure.” CLs have produced an enormous literature on how and why governments “fail” to achieve many of their stated objectives. I will list here only the most important examples:

1. the unavoidable “problem of knowledge” which all government planners face when trying to make decisions (Hayek)
2. the problem of “economic calculation” when free market prices and interest rates are absent (Mises)
3. the “Public Choice problem”, namely that those in power (politicians, bureaucrats) also have a “self-interest” which they will pursue (Buchanan)
4. the problem of the “unintended consequences” of government interventions in the economy (Mises)
5. the problem of the “dynamic of interventionism”, whereby one failure of intervention leads to calls for additional interventions to solve the problem, ad infinitum (Mises)
6. the problem of “predation” (Boettke) and “regulatory capture” , whereby government and bureaucratic bodies are “captured” by the very groups they are attempting to regulate and control

Also see these related posts:

1. see many of the posts listed above.

[Titian, “Sisyphus” (1548-49) – Sisyphus is pushing a boulder up to the summit in punishment for bringing enlightenment to the people. It might also represent classical liberals and libertarians pushing the boulder of liberty up the mountain of statism, only to see it roll back down again before they ever reach the summit.]

Updated: 11 July, 2022

Below is a list of my blog posts which are relevant to the Strategy Summit held in Sydney, 13-15 July, 2022.

Many are new; many were written for the CIS “Liberty and Society” Seminar in May, 2022; others come from another strategy position paper I wrote in March/April.

“Strategy Summit” blogs on the threats to liberty and strategies to counter them:

1. “The Negative Political Party” (11 July, 2022) here
2. “On Making the Argument/s for Liberty” (10 July, 2022) here
3. “The Threats to Liberty Part 2: The Size and Power of the State” (7 July, 2022) here
4. “The “Big Picture”: Part 1” (7 July 2022) here
5. “The “Big Picture”: Part 2” (7 July 2022) here
6. “Liberty in Australia and the Asia-Pacific Region” (5 July, 2022) here
7. “The Threats to Liberty Part 1: Government Expenditure” (29 June, 2022) here
8. “The Prospects for Liberty: The Threats it faces and how to counter them” (23 March, 2022) here

Some blogs on the state of liberty and liberalism in Australia and elsewhere:

1. “Liberty in Australia and the Asia-Pacific Region” (5 July, 2022) here
2. “Some Thoughts on the May 2022 Federal Election in Australia” (26 May 2022) here
3. On the “Linoleum Party” (LINO): “The Incoherence and Contradictions inherent in Modern Liberal Parties (and one in particular)” (21 Oct. 2021) here
4. “The Myth of a liberal ‘Australian Way of Life’” (20 June 2021) here
5. “The State of the Libertarian Movement after 50 Years (1970-2020): Some Observations” (25 March, 2021) here
6. “The Presumption of Government Failure” (1 Jan. 2021) here
7. “What is to be Done? The Rise of Hygiene Socialism and the Prospects for Liberty” (2 December, 2020) here
8. “The Work of Sisyphus: the Urgent Need for Intellectual Change” (25 April, 2020) here

Some blogs on the history and theory of classical liberalism

A Brief Overview:

1. “The History of Classical Liberalism in 1,730 words (and one picture)” (11 Aug. 2021; Revised 12 Apr. 2022) here
2. “The Classical Liberal Tradition – A 400 Year History Of Ideas And Movements: Lecture/Seminar Outline” (22 Apr. 2022) here
3. “Liberty as the Sum of All Freedoms” (26 April, 2022) here.
4. “Twelve Key Concepts of Liberty” (25 Apr. 2022) here

The Many Faces of Liberalism:

1. “The Multi-Dimensionality of Classical Liberalism” (19 April, 2022) here
2. “Plotting Liberty: The Multi-Dimensionality of Classical Liberalism and the Need for a New ‘Left-Right’ Political Spectrum” (17 April, 2022) here
3. “ ‘Hyphenated’ Liberalism and the Problem of Definition” (9 Aug. 2021) here
4. “Hyphenated Liberalism Part II: Utopian, Democratic, Revolutionary, and State Liberalism” (12 Oct. 2021) here
5. “The Conservative and Revolutionary Faces of Classical Liberalism” (11 Aug. 2021) here
6. “How Modern Day CL/Libertarians Differ From “Classical” Classical Liberals” (24 Aug. 2021) here
7. “On the (im)Possibility of finding a “Third Way” between Liberalism and Socialism” (19 Apr. 2022) here

Classical Liberals on the Role and Power of the State:

1. “The Spectrum of State Power: or a New Way of Looking at the Political Spectrum” (10 Aug., 2021; updated: 25 Apr. 2022) here
2. “Classical Liberals on the Size and Functions of the State” (10 Aug. 2021; updated: 25 Apr. 2022) here

What CLs were FOR and AGAINST:

1. “What Classical Liberals were Against” (12 Aug. 2021) here
2. “What Classical Liberals were For” (13 Aug. 2021) here
3. “What CLs were For – Part 2: Ends and Means” (19 Oct., 2021) here

CL Visions of the Future Free Society:

1. “Classical Liberal Visions of the Future I” (27 August, 2021) here
2. “Classical Liberal Visions of the Future II: The Contribution of Gustave de Molinari (1819-1912)” (29 Aug. 2021) here
3. “Classical Liberal Visions of the Future III: Liberal Experiments, Frameworks, and Archipelagos” (11 Oct. 2021) here
4. “Hayek on a Liberal Utopia” (11 Sept. 2021) here

CL Movements and Crusades for Liberty:

1. “Classical Liberal Movements: A Four Hundred Year History” (17 Aug. 2021) here
2. “Classical Liberalism as a Revolutionary Ideology of Emancipation” (13 Oct. 2021) here
3. “Classical Liberalism as the Philosophy of Emancipation II: The “True Radical Liberalism” of Peter Boettke” (17 Oct. 2021) here

CL’s Successes and Failures:

1. “The Success of Liberal Ideas has led to the Decline of Radical Liberal Parties” (6 Sept. 2021) here
2. “A Balance Sheet of the Success and Failures of Classical Liberalism” (21 Apr. 2022) here

Some things to read:

1. “The Classical Liberal Tradition: A 400 Year History of Ideas and Movements. An Introductory Reading List” (20 May, 2021; updated: 22 Apr. 2022) here
2. “One Volume Surveys of Classical Liberal Thought” (11 Jan. 2021) here
3. “600 Quotations about Liberty and Power” (28 Apr. 2022) here

[Building the “beacon of liberty” (1876)]

Where now is “the beacon of liberty”?

The problem for a small, remote, and relatively insignificant country like Australia is to figure out what it can do to contribute to the broader, international liberty movement and where it fits in. One possibility is for it to become a “beacon of liberty” now that Hong Kong is in the process of losing that status as it is gradually swallowed up by the CCP, and given the fact that the government of Singapore has strongly authoritarian bent. On the authoritarian, anti-liberal side of Singapore see The Human Freedom Index 2021 (Cato, Fraser) which ranks it 2 for economic freedom and 88 for personal freedom, for a combined ranking of 48. ¹.)) [See below for the relevant country pages of the Index.]

In the absence of Kong Kong and Singapore, imagine there being a truly liberal nation in the Asia-Pacific region which is

• independent of “entangling alliances”,
• highly productive and competitive in world markets,
• fully open to the free movement of goods, services, and people,
• and which is able to spread the ideas of liberty to the rest of the world.

Is Liberty a “western” notion?

Another problem which needs to be recognized is that for non-Western nations without an historical tradition of thinking about individualism, autonomy, natural rights, limited government, and the rule of law (among other things) there is an additional hurdle to be overcome in spreading the word about liberty in its many dimensions.² Can a society be truly “free” only in the economic sense of the word, without it also needing to be free in the “political” sense. Milton Friedman for one said that the two were intimately connected.³ However, these concepts are often regarded as being a “western imposition” which does not reflect the needs and traditions of non-western cultures. How to overcome this perception and to express the benefits of liberty of all kinds (not just economic, but also political and social) in a form relevant to these cultures is a significant problem which needs to be addressed.

A third problem is that critics of CL argue that the economic success of countries like Japan, South Korea, Singapore, and perhaps now China, shows that politically directed economic development by an elite of trained expert technocratic managers and far-seeing political leaders, has shown that there is an alternative to the western example of free and autonomous individuals pursuing their own interests within a framework of free markets, private property, the rule of law, and limited government. To overcome this argument we will need more studies by historians and economists which show that :

1. centralized technocratic and political management has not been as successful as claimed by its supporters and has resulted in many failures and distortions,⁴
2. that Bastiat’s “what is unseen” argument still applies,⁵ namely that economic development would have been better and more comprehensive if it had taken place in a free market and perhaps taken a different direction which might have benefited ordinary people more than it has
3. that it has produced societies dominated by very powerful and rich elites (crony capitalists or “crony communists”) who have benefited at the expense of ordinary consumers and taxpayers ⁶
4. that Asians too have (or will soon have) aspirations for freedom of speech, political involvement, and other “western-style” individual freedoms, which will need to be satisfied. Studies of the beliefs and behaviour of the Asian diasporas in places like Australia, Canada, Britain, and the U.S. might shed some light on this.

The Human Freedom Index Rankings

The Freedom Index for Oceania:

For Australia:

For New Zealand:

For Singapore

For Hong Kong:

Endnotes

1. The Human Freedom Index 2021. A Global Measurement of Personal, Civil, and Economic Freedom. Ian Vásquez, Fred McMahon, Ryan Murphy, and Guillermina Sutter Schneider (Cato Institute and Fraser Institute, 2021). Online – Human Freedom Index: 2021 | Cato Institute and PDF. Note NZ is no. 2, Australis is 8 (down 4), UK is 14 (down 3), and US is 15; Singapore is quite low because of its lack of political and social freedoms at 48 (economic freedom is 2, but personal freedom is 88 [↩]
2. Ludwig von Mises for example thought that “The Idea of Liberty is Western” which was the title of an article he wrote in 1950 for American Affairs. [↩]
3. See Milton Friedman, Chap. 1 “The Relation between Economic Freedom and Political Freedom” in Capitalism and Freedom (1962). [↩]
4. See Levy, David M. and Peart, Sandra J., Escape from Democracy: The Role of Experts and the Public in Economic Policy (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2016); Roger Koppl, “The Rule of Experts” in The Oxford Handbook of Austrian Economics. Edited by Christopher J. Coyne and Peter Boettke (Oxford UP, 2015); Roger Koppl, Expert Failure (Cambridge UP, 2018). [↩]
5. See Bastiat’s book Ce qu’on voit et ce qu’on ne voit past (What is Seen and what is not Seen) (1850) in Frédéric Bastiat, The Collected Works of Frédéric Bastiat. Vol. 3: Economic Sophisms and “What is Seen and What is Not Seen.” (2017). [↩]
6. A similar phenomenon has emerged in the West as well which Randall Holcombe calls “political capitalism”. [↩]