By Medecci Lineil
I thank MTUC secretary Andrew Low for his reply, but he did not give even one on one strong reason why I was wrong in attacking his call to weed out illegal foreign workers in Malaysia. All I read is his enquiring mind and tending to seek answers to issues from an Austrian libertarian perspective.
First, Austrian economics is a school of economic thought based on the analysis of human actions, scientifically known as praxeology. It is a value-free economics i.e perfectly neutral with regard to judgments of value as it always refers to means and never to the choice of ultimate ends.
I invite Andrew to read for greater understanding of its fundamentals and principles. Libertarian is about normative discipline, methodological individualism, voluntary association, non-aggression principles and private property rights. So I am proud to be both in these groups of thought. I am blessed indeed.
Second, extreme and radical view. I don’t think so. By your language of extreme, my argument is this; those few who first thought the earth was round or that our planet revolved around the sun and not vice versa were also extreme and discredited the Church. In that era, there were only a small numbers of people such as Galileo and Copernicus who went against the mainstream and they were indeed super dedicated.
The two thinkers paid a big penalty (established by force) for advocating these extreme seeking the truth. Just now I watched National Geographic documentary about Giodarno Bruno an Italian thinker who is best known for his cosmological theories but executed for holding opinion contrary to the Catholic Church.
In my language of extreme, it means pure principle, rationality and ultimate truth. Consistent. Radical change followed by radical action.
I take pride in our dogmatic application of Austrian libertarian no matter the situation. I argue that I have a right to defend myself from theft and slavery which is what taxation (i.e. government steals our money and misuses our hard earned money) is, yet how many of us taken action to defend these rights?
Therefore to answer your issues, consistently, I oppose drug laws, regulating massage parlors and brothel and prostitution laws. Let the market regulations takes place. (Reminder: This agreement does not discuss these issues in detail).
Third, my view is not in line with rational economic principles. The claim is incorrect. In fact, the methodology of Austrian economics, in my view, is based on rationalism that claims our knowledge stems from human reason.
Self-evident true and logically prior in human nature. Without engaging empirical testing. Its concepts applies universally irrespective of time and place such as natural and human beings, voluntary exchange, production, means ends relationship, time structure of production, time preference, the law of diminishing utility and quoting Andrew’s “economic incentive for employers to maximise profits”.
He admitted this reality of economic knowledge and yet he rejected it. Why? Let me then consider another priori concept if he would be willing to apply his dilemma to it. One, we can say with certainty that imposing higher taxes on income earners will lower rather than raise people’s standard of living.
And two, in mathematics, 2+2 always equals 4. For clearer view on this, you can turn to enlightenment philosopher Immanuel Kant and his groundbreaking The Critique of Pure Reason (1781). So, this is no joke at best and seditious at worse as Andrew said. Sapare Aude!
Fifth, what slavery? So long as a worker remains totally subservient to his employer’s will voluntarily, he is not yet a slave since his submission is voluntary. He must work to avoid the pain of hunger, to remove himself from uneasiness. The employer provides the means of satisfying the worker’s hunger.
If the employer enforced his slavery by violence, I maintain, it is subjected market relationship to decide and leave plenty of rooms to uphold the non-aggression principles compared to Andrew’s calling to force coffee shop and restaurant owners to involuntarily serve government bureaucrats and their minions as well as the enforces of such bureaucrats’ whims.
In my view, Andrew seems to be principled over anti-slavery, but not consistently, not genuinely sensitive way and hypocritical way.
Sixth, minimum wage and technological advances. Our economic school of thought says minimum wage is an unemployment law not an employment law no matter how many empirical findings he demonstrates. My argument is one fixed government rate cannot legally be employed. I do not want to prolong my anti minimum wage anymore as I have already explained its methodological reasoning before.
Seventh, Somalia. Poor me and Somalia. So many people tell me to move to Somalia, a stateless society where chaos is the rule and warlords are aplenty like Mohamed Farrah Aidid in Black Hawk Down. However, the standard allegations that abolish government would lead to chaotic warlords’ situation is misleading and unfounded.
My conclusion is if what I say here has not convinced Andrew that is fine. I am pleased. I don’t want to convince Andrew. I would rather have him make his own mind up and go from there voluntarily freely
First published at Free Malaysia Today on 31 March 2014.
MTUC’s final response can be read here.