By Priscilla Tacujan
Special thanks to Barun Mitra (Liberty Institute), Nonoy Oplas (Minimal Government) and Jyoti Sachavirawong (FNF-Asia), who provided information for this post.
Our friends in Asia are abuzz about the latest events in India and Thailand, writing and blogging about their perspectives and assessments of how things unfolded on the ground, while lending us their Asian lens on what brought about such violent crises to otherwise lively and energetic Mumbai and Bangkok. All this is a testament that these foot soldiers are jealous guardians of freedom wherever and whenever it is threatened.
Known as economic hubs of Asia, the cities of Mumbai and Bangkok are major tourist attractions, teeming with economic activities, and, without doubt, already on their happy way to economic prosperity. (During the standoff in Bangkok, about a quarter of a million tourists were stranded for the past week in hotels and departure lounges, according to Richard Lloyd Parry of The Times. In Mumbai, a little less than 200 people, many of whom were holed up in the Taj Majal Hotel, were killed. ) Two questions loom: who could be responsible for these devastating attacks? What will be the consequence of such a devastating turn of events on political and economic liberties in the region?
As of yesterday, the Constitutional Court of Thailand dissolved the ruling party, the People´s Power Party, on the grounds that some of its officials committed election fraud in the previous general election. What led to this was an all-out effort by the opposition, People´s Alliance for Democracy, including holding rallies and blockading the capital´s two airports, to discredit a popular party that is gaining wide support in rural areas. Speculations from news reporters and bloggers indicate that PAD has succeeded in its efforts to dismantle the ruling party with help from the military and elements within the monarchy. If this were so, such a power grab exceeds what is normally within the limits of the requirements of otherwise constitutionally installed democratic arrangements in Thailand. If these speculations prove true, no less than Thailand´s democratic efforts and free-market achievements are at stake.
In Mumbai, the threat to peace and security came from terrorists from Pakistan who have gripes against India over a piece of territory, Kashmir. But they targeted foreigners as well, including western nationals, in their senseless efforts to destroy Mumbai´s economic prosperity.
What will be the consequence of these events? “A threat to political freedom is a threat to economic freedom,” so argues Barun Mitra of the Liberty Institute, in his assessment of past week´s events. While expressing dismay at the futility of the whole enterprise of terror in Mumbai, Barun is equally exasperated at Thailand for resorting to undemocratic means to undermine the people´s cherished political and economic liberties. I am completely convinced that those of us who argue in defense of economic freedom, must defend political freedom as well. Markets and Democracy are two sides of the same coin; both enhance the capacity of the citizen and the consumer with freedom to choose.
Nonoy Oplas, who runs Minimal Government in the Phillipines, had this to say: The attacks in Bombay, I hope, can be a reminder to the Indian government — and all other governments around the world — that they must stick and focus on their most important function as government, to protect the citizens’ right to life, right to private property, right to dignity and expression. Governments should over-regulate killers and terrorists, over-spy criminals and robbers, over-persecute rapists and kidnappers. And they should under-regulate business and entrepreneurship.
Check back to AtlasNetwork for further commentary from our friends working for freedom in this region on the continuing situations in Asia.
Copyright © 2010 The Atlas Network.
Developed by The Liberty Lab
[...] Priscilla wrote an excellent post offering various perspectives about the tragedy in Mumbai from our friends in Asia. Here in the U.S. [...]
Your “over-regulate criminals” comment sounds great, but perhaps a couple of caveats are in order. One, make sure the guy you collared is actually the criminal. He might have been arrested by mistake. Then there’s the old “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter” problem. What do you call a Lashkar e-Toiba guy who attacks an Indian soldier in Kashmir, for example? Two, make sure you regulate all the criminals. The fact that a government orders crime or looks the other way and allows it does not make it OK. Specific examples one might point to include the US campaign against Fallujah, the Gujarat state government massacre of Moslems, Jenin, the Russian leveling of Grozniy, the egregious risk-taking by certain Wall Street CEO’s with other people’s money.
William, my statement to “over-regulate criminals” and “under-regulate business” is a policy. How it will be implemented depends on the seriousness of a government to implement the rule of law. If the State is concentrated in establishing peace and order, and it’s not busy with bail-outs, regulating and taxing various business left and right, providing various welfare programs and subsidies, then the State’s primary role of protecting the citizens’ right to life, right to private property ownership, right to voluntary exchange and trade, will be fulfilled.