Yes, Economic liberty atau Economic freedom atau Free market Capitalism adalah penggerak pertumbuhan sesungguhnya.
Idealnya memang Economic Liberty (free market capitalism) berbarengan dengan Political Liberty (Democracy). Tapi kalau mau disuruh pilih ... saya pilih Economic Liberty first, Political Liberty menyusul. Masalah utama dengan demokrasi adalah karena publik umumnya buta economy-101 .. yang muncul sebagai pemenang biasanya adalah kaum populis ... yang malah suka membatas-batasi Economic Liberty. Punya kebun dibatasi lah, bikin pajak2 baru se-enak udelnya, sedikit2 kasih subsidi, sedikit2 intervensi ke-urusan B2B, tiap tahun minimum wage dinaikan sampe ga masuk akal, PHK karyawan biayanya tinggi-nya bukan maen ... ya hasilnya begini Di India bertahun tahun pemilu yang menang kamu populis sosialis ... Baru belakangan saja politisi2 pro economic liberty menang. Hasilnya ... bisa dibandingkan India sekarang dengan India satu dekade lalu. Contoh lain Singapore ataupun China ... Meski "tidak demokratis" Economic Freedom di buka luas disana .. hasilnya bisa dilihat sendiri .... Kalau demokrasi kita berhasil menghasilkan politisi2 pro Economic Liberty yang berani menentang convensional wisdom masyarakat umum yang cenderung populis ... saya yakin kita bisa tumbuh lebih cepat dari India ataupun China. Just my 2 cents. --- In [email protected], Reza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Another interesting opinion on democracy and economic development... > http://www.elegans.com.tr/haberdetay.asp? varLang=&yazar=30&varSayiCode=14 > > "The Constitution was designed to further the cause of liberty, not > democracy Economic liberty, which is a precondition for growth and > prosperity, was enshrined in the Constitution, and that's how things > remained for America's first century of extraordinary development and > growth." > *On Democracy* > Steve H. HANKE, *Professor of Applied Economics at the Johns Hopkins > University & Columnist at Forbes magazine* > **In the aftermath of World War I, President Woodrow WILSON set out to make > the world safe for democracy. Since then, U.S. Presidents have marched to > the drumbeat of Wilsonian idealism. Indeed, most U.S. foreign policy is > carried out under the pretext and in some cases perhaps the genuine belief > that America is delivering democracy to the rest of the world. Therefore, > President George W. BUSH's use of that rationale for foreign engagements is > not new or unusual, and it is logical that one of the missions of U.S. > intelligence agencies is to "bolster the growth of democracy and sustain > peaceful democratic states." > > Most people, including most Americans, would be surprised to learn that the > word "democracy" does not appear in the Declaration of Independence (1776), > the Constitution of the United States of America (1789), or its first ten > amendments, known as the Bill of Rights (1791). They would also be shocked > to learn the reason for the absence of the word democracy in the founding > documents of the U.S.A. Contrary to what propaganda has led the public to > believe, America's Founding Fathers were skeptical and anxious about > democracy. They were aware of the evils that accompany a tyranny of the > majority. Not surprisingly, the Framers of the Constitution went to great > lengths to insure that the federal government was not based on the will of > the majority and was not, therefore, democratic. > > The original Constitution established the rule of law and the limits of > government. About 20 percent of the Constitution itemizes things that the > federal and state governments may not do. Another 10 percent of the > Constitution is concerned with positive grants of power. The bulk of the > Constitution about 70 percent addresses the Framers' conception of their > main task: to bring the United States and its government under the rule of > law. > > The Constitution is primarily a structural and procedural document that > itemizes who is to exercise power and how they are to exercise it. The > Constitution divided the federal government into legislative, executive and > judicial branches. Each branch was designed to check the power of the others > because the Founders did not want to rely only on the voters to check > government power. As a result, citizens were given very little power to > select federal officials. Neither the President, members of the judiciary > nor the Senate were elected by direct popular vote. Only members of the > House of Representatives were directly elected by popular vote. The > Constitution was not a Cartesian construct or formula aimed at social > engineering, but something to protect individual citizens from the > government. In short, the Constitution was designed to govern the > government, not the people. > > The Bill of Rights further establishes the rights of the people against > infringements by the State. The only claim citizens have on the State, under > the Bill of Rights, is for a trial by a jury. The rest of the citizen's > rights are protections from the State. > > If the Framers of the Constitution did not embrace democracy, what did they > adhere to? To a man, the Framers agreed that the purpose of government was > to secure citizens in John Locke's trilogy of the rights to life, liberty > and property. The Framers wrote extensively and eloquently on liberty. John > ADAMS, for example, wrote that "the moment the idea is admitted into > society, that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there > is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny > commence." > > The Founders' actions often spoke even louder than their words. Alexander > HAMILTON, a distinguished lawyer, took on many famous cases out of > principle. For example, after the Revolutionary War against the colonial > power, Great Britain, the state of New York enacted harsh measures against > Loyalists and British subjects. These included the Confiscation Act (1779), > the Citation Act (1782) and the Trespass Act (1783). All involved the taking > of property. In Hamilton's view, these Acts illustrated the inherent > difference between democracy and the law. Even though the Acts were widely > popular, they flouted fundamental principles of property law. Hamilton > carried his views into action by having the rule of law thoroughly applied. > He successfully defended in the face of enormous public hostility those > who had property taken under the three New York state statutes. > > The Constitution was designed to further the cause of liberty, not > democracy. To do that, the Constitution protected individuals' rights from > the government, as well as from their fellow citizens. To that end, the > Constitution laid down clear, unequivocal and enforceable rules to protect > individuals' rights. In consequence, the government's scope and scale were > strictly limited. Economic liberty, which is a precondition for growth and > prosperity, was enshrined in the Constitution, and that's how things > remained for America's first century of extraordinary development and > growth. > > > On 7/10/07, Poltak Hotradero <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > At 03:13 PM 7/9/2007, you wrote: > > > > >one question: what democracy really is? The article points out that > > >singapore, malaysia and russia are not 'truly' democratic despite > > elections > > >being done frequently and relatively free. But for example, UK is usually > > >defined as one of the true democracies while it has royal family which > > has > > >many privileges over the commoners.. > > > > Democracy is a system based on feedback - as the opposite of > > authoritarianism which lack of political feedback (you're either be > > silent or die). > > > > And further question will be - how effective is the feedback? In > > most cases the effectiveness of a political feedback system > > determined by the presence of oppositions, either by influence > > (pressure on issues) or by numbers. You can have few oppositions > > (like US or UK) with strong influence over many issues, or you can > > have many oppositions (like Indonesia, India, etc.) with a lower > > influence. > > > > Now let we analyze Singapore, Malaysia and Russia. > > There are many similarities over those countries, Not only there are > > very few oppositions but also those oppositions have a very weak > > influence. That's why those countries can't be said as having a true > > democratic system. > > > > An election by itself is not the whole democracy - as elections also > > held in most countries in the world regardless of the > > intentions. North Korea and Cuba for example in the past held > > elections (with the results of : 99.99% winning votes for the ruling > > party). What kind of feedback we can get from such system? Nothing. > > > > How about UK? Well, the monarch is more like a symbol and has no > > effective political power. All political decisions regarding British > > policy determined by political parties which represented by the > > elected members of House of Commons. > > > > The other British parliament members - that is House of Lords (post > > held by the aristocrats) still play some roles in British political > > system, but in the modern era the powers of the House of Lords have > > been steadily declining. > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] >
