Here’s my PDF version, which also has links to the original PDF and a Gutenberg version. In this blog post I will ANNOTATE IN BLUE(and red/yellow)this Statute.
The Statute of Anne
In The Eighth Year Of The Reign Of Queen Anne.
An Act for the Encouragement of Learning, by Vesting the Copies of Printed Books in the Authors or Purchasers of such Copies, during the Times therein mentioned.
Whereas Printers, Booksellers, and other Persons, have of late frequently taken the Liberty of Printing, Reprinting, and Publishing, or causing to be Printed, Reprinted, and Published Books, and other Writings, without the Consent of the Authors or Proprietors of such Books and Writings, to their very great Detriment, and too often to the Ruin of them and their Families: For Preventing therefore such Practices for the future, and for the Encouragement of Learned Men to Compose and Write useful Books; [Sanjeev: two key objectives – to provide ownership rights to their books to authors and to encourage more authors in the future] May it please Your Majesty, that it may be Enacted, and be it Enacted by the Queens most Excellent Majesty, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons in this present Parliament Assembled, and by the Authority of the same, That from and after the Tenth Day of April, One thousand seven hundred and ten, the Author of any Book or Books already Printed, who hath not Transferred to any other the Copy or Copies of such Book or Books, Share or Shares thereof, or the Bookseller or Booksellers, Printer or Printers, or other Person or Persons, who hath or have Purchased or Acquired the Copy or Copies of any Book or Books, in order to Print or Reprint the same, shall have the sole Right and Liberty of Printing such Bookand Books for the Term of One and twenty Years, to Commence from the said Tenth Day of April, and no longer; and that the Author of any Book or Books already Composed and not Printed and Published, or that shall hereafter be Composed, and his Assignee, or Assigns, shall have the sole Liberty of Printing and Reprinting such Book and Books for the Term of fourteen Years, to Commence from the Day of the First Publishing the same, and no longer; And that if any other Bookseller, Printer, or other Person whatsoever, from and after the Tenth Day of April, One thousand seven hundred and ten, within the times Granted and Limited by this Act, as aforesaid, shall Print, Reprint, or Import, or cause to be Printed, Reprinted, or Imported any such Book or Books, without the Consent of the Proprietor or Proprietors thereof first had and obtained in Writing, Signed in the Presence of Two or more Credible Witnesses; or knowing the same to be so Printed or Reprinted, without the Consent of the Proprietors, shall Sell, Publish, or Expose to Sale, or cause to be Sold, Published, or Exposed to Sale, any such Book or Books, without such Consent first had and obtained, as aforesaid, Then such Offender or Offenders shall Forfeit such Book or Books, and all and every Sheet or Sheets, being part of such Book or Books, to the Proprietor or Proprietors of the Copy thereof, who shall forthwith Damask and make Waste-Paper of them: And further, That every such Offender or Offenders, shall Forfeit One Penny for every sheetwhich shall be found in his, her, or their Custody, either Printed or Printing, Published or Exposed to Sale, contrary to the true intent and meaning of this Act, the one Moiety thereof [Sanjeev: “each of two parts into which a thing is or can be divided”] to the Queen’s most Excellent Majesty, Her Heirs and Successors, and the other Moiety thereof to any Person or Persons that shall Sue for the same, to be Recovered in any of Her Majesty’s Courts of Record at Westminster, by Action of Debt, Bill, Plaint, or Information, in which no Wager of Law, Essoign, Privilege, or Protection, or more than one Imparlance, shall be allowed.
II. And whereas many Persons may through Ignorance Offend against this Act, unless some Provision be made whereby the Property in every such Book, as is intended by this Act to be Secured to the proprietor or Proprietors thereof, may be ascertained, as likewise the Consent of such Proprietor or Proprietors for the Printing or Reprinting of such Book or Books may from time to time be known; Be it therefore further Enacted by the Authority aforesaid, That nothing in this Act contained shall be construed to extend to subject any Bookseller, Printer, or other Person whatsoever, to the Forfeitures or Penalties therein mentioned, for or by reason of the Printing or Reprinting of any Book or Books without such Consent, as aforesaid, unless the Title to the Copy of such Book or Books hereafter Published shall, before such Publication be Entered, in the Register-Book of the Company of Stationers, in such manner as hath been usual, which Register-Book shall at all times be kept at the Hall of the said Company, and unless such Consent of the Proprietor or Proprietors be in like manner Entered, as aforesaid, for every of which several Entries, Six Pence shall be Paid, and no more; which said Register-Book may, at all Reasonable and Convenient times, be Resorted to, and Inspected by any Bookseller, Printer, or other Person, for the Purposes before mentioned, without any Fee or Reward; and the Clerk of the said Company of Stationers, shall, when and as often as thereunto required, give a Certificate under his Hand of such Entry or Entries, and for every such Certificate, may take a Fee not exceeding Six Pence.
III. Provided nevertheless, That if the Clerk of the said Company of Stationers, for the time being shall Refuse or Neglect to Register, or make such Entry or Entries, or to give such Certificate, being thereunto Required by the Author or Proprietor of such Copy or Copies, in the Presence of Two or more Credible Witnesses, That then such Person and Persons so refusing, Notice being first duly given of such Refusal, by an Advertisement in the Gazette, shall have the like Benefit, as if such Entry or Entries, Certificate or Certificates had been duly made and given; and that the Clerks so refusing, shall, for any such Offence, Forfeit to the Proprietor of such Copy or Copies the Sum of Twenty Pounds, to be Recovered in any of Her Majesty’s Courts of Record at Westminster, by Action of Debt, Bill, Plaint, or Information, in which no Wager of Law, Essoign, Privilege or Protection, or more than one Imparlance shall be allowed.
IV. Provided nevertheless, and it is hereby further Enacted by the Authority aforesaid, That if any Bookseller or Booksellers, Printer or Printers, shall, after the said Five and twentieth Day of March, One thousand seven hundred and ten, set a Price upon, or Sell or Expose to Sale, any Book or Books at such a Price or Rate as shall be Conceived by any Person or Persons to be High and Unreasonable; It shall and may be Lawful for any Person or Persons to make Complaint thereof to the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury for the time being; the Lord Chancellor, or Lord Keeper of the Great Seal of Great Britain for the time being; the Lord Bishop of London for the time being; the Lord Chief Justice of the Court of Queen’s Bench, the Lord Chief Justice of the Court of Common Pleas, the Lord Chief Baron of the Court of Exchequer, for the time being; the Vice Chancellors of the Two Universities for the time being, in that part of Great Britain called England; the Lord President of the Sessions for the time being; the Lord Justice General for the time being; the Lord Chief Baron of the Exchequer for the time being; the Rector of the College of Edinburgh for the time being, in that part of Great Britain called Scotland; who, or any one of them, shall and have hereby full Power and Authority from time to time, to Send for, Summon, or Call before him or them such Bookseller or Booksellers, Printer or Printers, and to Examine and Enquire of the reason of the Dearness and Inhauncement of the Price or Value of such Book or Books by him or them so Sold or Exposed to Sale; and if upon such Enquiry and Examination it shall be found, that the Price of such Book or Books is Inhaunced, or any wise too High or Unreasonable, Then and in such case, the said Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord Chancellor or Lord Keeper, Bishop of London, two Chief Justices, Chief Baron, Vice Chancellors of the Universities, in that part of Great Britain called England, and the said Lord President of the Sessions, Lord Justice General, Lord Chief Baron, and Rector of the College of Edinburgh, in that part of Great Britain called Scotland, or any one or more of them, so Enquiring and Examining, have hereby full Power and Authority to Reform and Redress the same, and to Limit and Settle the Price of every such Printed Book and Books, from time to time, according to the best of their Judgements, and as to them shall seem Just and Reasonable; and in case of Alteration of the Rate or Price from what was Set or Demanded by such Bookseller or Booksellers, Printer or Printers, to Award and Order such Bookseller and Booksellers, Printer and Printers, to Pay all the Costs and Charges that the Person or Persons so Complaining shall be put unto, by reason of such Complaint, and of the causing such Rate or Price to be so Limited and Settled; all which shall be done by the said Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord Chancellor, or Lord Keeper, Bishop of London, two Chief Justices, Chief Baron, Vice-Chancellors of the Two Universities, in that part of Great Britain called England, and the said Lord President of the Sessions, Lord Justice General, Lord Chief Baron, and Rector of the College of Edinburgh, in that part of Great Britain called Scotland, or any one of them, by Writing under their Hands and Seals, and thereof Publick Notice shall be forthwith given by the said Bookseller or Booksellers, Printer or Printers, by an Advertisement in the Gazette; and if any Bookseller or Booksellers, Printer or Printers, shall, after such Settlement made of the said Rate and Price, Sell, or expose to Sale any Book or Books, at a higher or greater Price than what shall have been so Limited and Settled, as aforesaid, then and in every such case such Bookseller and Booksellers, Printer and Printers, shall Forfeit the Sum of Five Pounds for every such Book so by him, her, or them Sold or Exposed to Sale; One Moiety thereof to the Queen’s most Excellent Majesty, Her Heirs and Successors, and the other Moiety to any Person or Persons that shall Sue for the same, to be Recovered, with Costs of Suit, in any of Her Majesty’s Courts of Record at Westminster, by Action of Debt, Bill, Plaint or Information, in which no Wager of Law, Essoign, Privilege or Protection, or more than one Imparlance, shall be allowed.
V. Provided always, and it is hereby Enacted, That Nine Copies of each Book or Books, upon the best Paper, that from and after the said Tenth Day of April, One thousand seven hundred and ten, shall be Printed and Published, as aforesaid, or Reprinted and Published with Additions, shall, by the Printer and Printers thereof, be Delivered to the Warehouse-Keeper of the said Company of Stationers for the time being, at the Hall of the said Company, before such Publication made, for the Use of the Royal Library, the Libraries of the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, the Libraries of the Four Universities in Scotland, the Library of Sion College in London, and the Library commonly called the Library belonging to the Faculty of Advocates at Edinburgh respectively; which said Warehouse-Keeper, is hereby required, within Ten Days after Demand by the Keepers of the respective Libraries, or any Person or Persons by them or any of them Authorised to Demand the said Copy, to Deliver the same, for the Use of the aforesaid Libraries; and if any Proprietor, Bookseller or Printer, or the said Warehouse-Keeper of the said Company of Stationers, shall not observe the Direction of this Act therein, That then he and they, so making Default in not Delivering the said Printed Copies, as aforesaid, shall Forfeit, besides the value of the said Printed Copies, the sum of Five Pounds for every Copy not so Delivered, as also the value of the said Printed Copy not so Delivered, the same to be Recovered by the Queen’s Majesty, Her Heirs and Successors, and by the Chancellor, Masters, and Scholars of any of the said Universities, and by the President and Fellows of Sion College, and the said Faculty of Advocates at Edinburgh, with their full Costs respectively.
VI. Provided always, and be it further Enacted, That if any Person or Persons incur the Penalties contained in this Act, in that part of Great Britain called Scotland, they shall be recoverable by any Action before the Court of Session there.
VII. Provided, That nothing in this Act contained do extend, or shall be construed to extend, to Prohibit the Importation, Vending, or Selling of any Books in Greek, Latin, or any other Foreign Language Printed beyond the Seas; Any thing in this Act contained to the contrary notwithstanding.
VIII. And be it further Enacted by the Authority aforesaid, That if any Action or Suit shall be Commenced or Brought against any Person or Persons whatsoever, for doing or causing to be done any thing in pursuance of this Act, the Defendants in such Action may Plead the General Issue, and give the Special Matter in Evidence; and if upon such Action a Verdict be given for the Defendant, or the Plaintiff become Nonsuited, or Discontinue his Action, then the Defendant shall have and recover his full Costs, for which he shall have the same Remedy as a Defendant in any case by Law hath.
IX. Provided, That nothing in this Act contained shall extend, or be construed to extend, either to Prejudice or Confirm any Right that the said Universities, or any of them, or any Person or Persons have, or claim to have, to the Printing or Reprinting any Book or Copy already Printed, or hereafter to be Printed.
X. Provided nevertheless, That all Actions, Suits, Bills, Indictments, or Informations for any Offence that shall be Committed against this Act, shall be Brought, Sued, and Commenced within Three Months next after such Offence Committed, or else the same shall be Void and of none Effect.
XI. Provided always, That after the Expiration of the said Term of Fourteen Years, the sole Right of Printing or Disposing of Copies shall return to the Authors thereof, if they are then Living, for another Term of Fourteen Years.
Based on a request received, I’ve spent a week to prepare this mid-length document which summarises hundreds of pages of my writings. PDF here.
===THE TEXT ===
When I joined India’s senior civil service in 1982, I was deeply ignorant of how the society and economy works, given my science background. But I had great hopes of contributing to the wellbeing of Indians. These were soon dashed as I saw the deeply entrenched corruption in India’s governance system. I began studying economics to try to figure out what was happening. By 1990, I concluded that socialism was responsible for the mess. In 2020, it became clear that socialism has many forms. Western nations, notionally not socialist, imposed totalitarian restrictions and mandates without the slightest regard for the harms caused. The big government disease is more widespread than I had thought.
I don’t think any of us wants our children and progeny to experience mass-scale criminal events of this kind, in which their life and happiness is at the mercy of hideously corrupt, totalitarian governments. So, what’s the world we should try to build for them? I offer some of my observations on this below, as food for thought for your consideration. I first lay out my assumptions (one family) and understandings of how we got here (economic and political freedom). Then I discuss the obstacles to a better world and how we might overcome them. Finally, I subject my vision to a reality check.
We are one family
We are the progeny of one common ancestor, the first human (or most likely, a humanoid such as Lucy) – whose traits are encoded in each cell in our body. As a result, biologically “any two peoples’ genomes are, on average, ~99.6% identical and ~0.4% different”[1]. Our commonality far exceeds our differences. That’s why a medicinal drug has more or less the same effect on us as it has on any other human. That’s why we all experience broadly similar emotions when we read a great novel or watch a great movie. Not just physically, we are virtually identical mentally, with similar hopes and dreams.
It is therefore fair to claim that we are one big family. By implication, we ought to treat each other as such. This foundational equality among humans leads us to the imperative of equal freedom in which no one has a claim of superiority over others, and definitely no one has a “divine right” to boss over others. In this world of equal humans, only our work and contributions distinguish us.
Many false concepts, however, breach this foundational equality. Eugenics and racism (including reverse racism, i.e. affirmative action) are based on the mythical idea of “race”. Although this myth was exploded a long time ago (such as in anthropologist Ashley Montagu’s 1942 book, Man’s Most Dangerous Myth: The Fallacy of Race), many people still believe it. They probably don’t know that “[i]t is impossible to look at people’s genetic code and deduce whether they are Black, Caucasian or Asian.”[2]
Amazing improvements since c.1750
We are fortunate to live in a world where the risk of death from disease and war is much smaller than it has ever been. While nothing spectacular happened specifically in 1750, that year is a useful marker to delineate the commencement of the industrial revolution.
2.1. Life expectancy, per capita income
It was from around 1750 that Western countries, starting with the Netherlands and England, exploded from poverty into wealth, from high mortality into high longevity.“[B]ack before the industrial revolution it would take millennia for living standards to double, yet today we have grown used to our material prosperity doubling every thirty years.”[3] As a result, “the average participant in the British economy in 2000 was fifteen times better supplied with food and clothing and housing and education than her remote ancestors”[4].
At some risk of over-simplification, we can say that before 1750, it was mainly the politically powerful class that could aspire to wealth. But now even ordinary people can achieve living conditions better than what the wealthiest could, in the past. People in the West now earn over fifteen times more on average, than they did 275 years ago. And have access to goods and technologies that couldn’t have been even imagined, then.
Likewise for health. An associated boost to agriculture and animal husbandry from around 1750 dramatically increased food availability, leading to improved health outcomes for mothers and children. For thousands of years before the industrial revolution, the average human life expectancy at birth was around 30 years, mainly because around half the children born died before reaching the age of five. In contrast, in developed countries today, children can expect to live almost three times longer (85.63 years in Hong Kong[5]).
There is a belief that the increase in human life expectancy has come about mainly from medical advances. Far from it. Vaccines and medicines have contributed very little. I recently found that estimates of lives saved by vaccines are grossly exaggerated, possibly in the order of 50 times[6]. Thomas McKeown was a keen student of life expectancy in the West. John Bunker summarised McKeown’s findings, thus: “Life expectancy had increased by 23 years during the first half [of the 20th] century, but McKeown was able to attribute no more than a year or two to advances in medical care”[7]. The improvements in life expectancy that have arisen across the world (not just in the West) have come about mainly from improvements in nutrition (including clean milk) and sanitation.
2.2 Vastly greater political and religious freedom
Underpinning the industrial revolution was a change in mindset and greatly improved individual dignity, liberty and agency. From a feudal system, with power concentrated at the top, the society now had a democratic system in which power arose from, and was authenticated by, the people.
The changes that led to the industrial revolution took a long time. Around 600 BC, traces of free thought and democracy had emerged in India and in Greece. But there was much regression to the system of kings and emperors, leading to the “divine right” of kings – the claim that kings act on behalf of God. But at least since the Magna Carta of 1215, kings’ powers were under interrogation, with many lives lost in the process. Even King Charles I lost his, in 1649. Only with the Glorious Revolution of 1688 was the democratic principle institutionalised, with the parliament being becoming an equal of the king, and more powerful in some ways. These events led to the modern system of checks and balances which informs the American constitution with limited powers for the legislature and executive. In the UK, where constitutional principles are less codified, the parliament has greater autonomy. Along the way, property rights and the rule of law were greatly boosted. In my manuscript, The Discovery of Freedom[8], I provide a detailed account of the evolution of the free society.
It was not merely political freedom that emerged from centuries of resistance and civil war, but religious freedom. The vice-like grip of the Church over the lives and thought of the people loosened. The need for the two major branches of Christianity (Catholic and Protestant) to tolerate each other led to free thought and scientific discovery. The Church and state were also separated. Summarising Pierre Manent’s work, Peter Berkowitz explained that modern civilisation was “born in a political struggle …to escape from the political authority exercised by the Church. To win this emancipation …it was necessary … to neutralize the Church’s tendency to intervene in political life.”[9]
The freedom to think and express opinions without fear of being killed by the Church or the king also engendered ethical reform. As Andrew McIntyre points out, modern civilisation “has been not only a material triumph … but an ethical triumph as well.”[10] Free societies not only forbid slavery, they do not condone racism and oppression of women, or even the mistreatment of animals.
2.3 Economic freedom
How exactly does per capita income and improved life expectancy arise from increased dignity and freedom? Adam Smith asked this question – of how the wealth of nations is created – and in his 1776 book that bears that name, showed that once arbitrary “systems of preference or restraint” (feudal) are taken away, “the … simple system of natural liberty establishes itself of its own accord”. F.A. Hayek called this the “spontaneous order”. In this natural order, everyone’s private optimisation – subject to their private constraints (budgetary, skills, knowledge of local circumstances), leads to society-wide optimisation.
Freedom drives an inquisitive mind, willing to try risky projects. Out of a thousand attempts to make a bulb filament, one might succeed. The right to private property provides the incentive to produce goods and services that society needs, in the assurance that any profit so generated will not be stolen. Free trade across domestic and international borders deepens markets and strengthens competition. And global competition to serve customers better, through cheaper and better goods and services, leads to relentless innovation.
In this manner, free societies churn out literally infinite amounts of wealth. Of course, while free societies necessarily become wealthy, not all wealthy societies are free. Some people in shackled societies might enrich themselves by grabbing hold of the country’s natural resources. But natural resources can’t create long lasting wealth. As Julian Simon explained, it is people who are the ultimate resource. Unless people are free, no society can consistently prosper.
It is important to note that the underlying self-interest that drives prosperity is not “selfish” in its typical usage but often other-regarding. Vernon Smith has summarised Adam Smith’s 1759 Theory of Moral Sentiments, thus: “being self-interested is distinct from acting self-interestedly”. And this is how the free society also becomes an ethical society.
2.4 Capitalism and Western civilisation
On looking inside a free society, we find bustling markets and institutions like the free press and an accountable government. These institutions – democratic government, free press and free markets, allow people to influence the choices that society makes. Free markets give individual choice the greatest possible consideration. Even the richest man can’t force me to buy his products or work in his company. The customer is indeed king. Free markets are truly democratic.
One can summarise these mechanisms of freedom, taken together, by the word, “capitalism”. The term is more typically applied, however, only to the free market economic system. Instead, the broader term “Western civilisation” combines all these ideas, events and institutions, such as capitalism, democracy, equal tolerance for all religions, and a commitment to free speech. The philosophy that gives primacy to life and freedom and underpins the Western civilisation, is called classical liberalism. As Ayn Rand noted, “[c]ivilization is the progress toward a society of privacy. The savage’s whole existence is public, ruled by the laws of his tribe. Civilization is the process of setting man free from men.”[11] Figure 1 summarises the evolution from society-centric regimes towards the contractual, classical liberal state, which is centred around the individual.
Figure 1: Schematic depiction of the evolution of free society from collectivist frameworks
Classical liberalism is neither conservative nor libertarian. It neither seeks to conserve most aspects of the past (as conservatives do), nor is it focused on any single principle (e.g. non-aggression) to determine societal outcomes. Instead, it involves respectful, open-minded debate and analysis which balances real-life imperatives, typically also informed by a cost-benefit analysis (CBA). The socialists, conservatives and libertarians dislike transparent analysis that includes a CBA, claiming to find their answers through “ethics” or other mysterious hocus-pocus. But even a bad CBA is better than no CBA, for it exposes one’s assumptions and allows improvements in the future. Black-box approaches like “ethics” are, in comparison, a dead-end, a mere theological assertion. As a result, while a libertarian would want no government at all (a purely fictitious goal), the classical liberal is happy to have a strong but limited government, a night-watchman.
2.5 Homogenisation of cultures (reduction of differences)
There is much angst across the world these days because young people are ignoring tradition and “copying the West”. Not only has English become the world’s lingua franca, but English language songs, movies and TV shows have captured a significant share of the attention span of the young. This homogenization of language and culture has been further boosted through social media and smartphones, with parents finding it hard to supervise what their children are absorbing from the digital world which lives inside their phones.
The tendency for world-wide homogenisation of culture, which accelerated after telephony and broadcast TV in the mid-20th century, has now escalated to unprecedented levels. My son carried a heavy backpack of books to school and got his laptop only towards the end. A few years later, my daughter not only passed her school but university without a single physical book in her room. All she carried around was a laptop.
It is hard to say whether this change has been for the better, for we are rapidly losing many languages, religions and cultures. But one must note that this change is partly being driven by parents themselves. Most poor parents in India are desperate to provide their children with English language education, which they see as the foundation for upward mobility. If a majority of people want these changes, then it must be beneficial for them in some way. Some nations such as Japan pay particular attention to preserving their culture. But in the end, this is a call each of us must make. We can preserve (if we wish) our native language and culture, all the while being aware that the forces driving a global mono-culture are unstoppable.
Many problems remain
Even today, much of humanity is not free. The West has also regressed, particularly on free speech – the primary pillar of the free society. And many Third World countries have rejected outright the idea of freedom and democracy. Further, bureaucracies and political leaders worldwide are misusing the TV and internet to propagate big lies. As Lord Acton said, “[p]ower tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely”. It seems at times that the world described by George Orwell in 1984 is close at hand.
3.1 Increasing attacks on speech
It is now common in some Western countries for police to arrest people for merely expressing opinions on social media don’t match the opinions of governments and profiteers. Governments now insist that everyone must believe their version of the truth. And profiteers promote questionable medical and “climate” remedies through well-funded propaganda campaigns and pay off corrupt governments to censor views that might threaten their profits.
3.2 Socialist ideology and the Big State
Even as representative parliaments rose to prominence from c.1688 and freedom of thought, along with property rights, boosted agricultural and industrial productivity, some philosophers such as Jean-Jacques Rousseau and later Karl Marx, were not happy. Apparently, those who become rich from their own efforts are actually “exploiting” the workers. These philosophers offered a solution – socialism (some versions of which are called communism), in which power is exercised centrally on behalf of workers by those who ostensibly know what’s best for everyone. In extreme forms, the state takes over all productive activity – in which everyone is forced to participate “according to his ability” and receives back “according to his need”; thus magically maximising production and eliminating economic inequality.
While classical liberals fought for equal treatment under the law (the rule of law), socialists fought for unequal treatment, in which those who were more talented would work at a low, government-determined wage for the rest of society. John Rawls claimed that “natural talents [are] in some respects a common asset”. Like any other “common asset”, these could therefore be confiscated for public use by the state. Those without talent would get the same wage as the talented – because of their need.
There are many versions of socialism. One of these insists on “social justice”, which involves “affirmative action” or reverse discrimination, with lower standards being accepted from “lower” races or “castes”. But as Thomas Sowell and Water Williams showed, such approaches only end up harming those who are supposed to benefit.
That socialism is entirely illogical: a delusion, was flagged by Frédéric Bastiat and John Stuart Mill in the 19th century and later – more powerfully – by Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, Ayn Rand and Julian Simon. While socialism (its communist version) overpowered Russia from 1917, Europe and the USA were influenced by milder versions (Fabian socialism in the UK and progressivism in the USA). These milder versions are equally harmful. They, too, destroy the system of natural liberty, which is the goose that lays the golden egg.
The goose of capitalism is not perfect and sometimes needs regulatory oversight but one can’t kill it and replace it with the socialist goose and still expect golden eggs. Perhaps because the concepts involved are complex, the academia has largely failed to see this inevitability. Even economics, otherwise supportive of capitalism, often promotes big government. Almost all economists, using concepts like public goods and negative externalities (which have many questionable aspects), supported totalitarian covid lockdowns and vaccine mandates which caused far greater harm than good. They forgot the basic concept of trade-offs and failed to demand a CBA. Nor did they undertake any empirical validation. The field of public health, in particular, is so fully captured by socialists that there is no longer even a pretence of empiricism and rational analysis in that discipline. Entirely cooked up data, claims and policies underpinned the tyranny of 2020.
It is only by ridding society of the delusion of socialism that billions of people can be lifted from poverty into wealth, and from poor health to good health. So the project to eradicate the last vestiges of socialism must rank high in our priorities.
3.3 Religion (mainly Islam, now)
While religion has some benefits when practiced in moderation, extreme positions cause great harm. It was not religious belief but the end of compulsory religious belief and considerable increase in doubt, that led to Western civilisation. Doubt had been widely prevalent in ancient India with the Charvakas – among the greatest agnostics and atheists. Two major atheists founded the “religions” of Buddhism and Jainism, and even today, one can be an atheist and a Hindu.
However, the religions of Christianity and Islam, which came later, did not entertain doubt. Doubt did finally emerge in the West, first as an argument for tolerance and later as pantheism. Fortunately, after bloody battles and much debate, Christianity has given up its coercive approaches. But Islam has not even started down that path, and often poses a serious threat to human wellbeing, including (and perhaps mainly) to its own – the Muslims. Islam is clearly stuck in a medieval time warp or limbo. Polite attempts to distinguish Islam and “Islamism” are unproductive (the scriptures for both are the same). Instead, the world needs an enlightened Islam. Islam needs to find a way to encourage free speech and critical analysis of its beliefs.
Instead of dividing ourselves into religions, claiming certainty for our own and the falsehood of others, it will be more productive to engage in philosophical contemplation of the idea of God and our insignificant place in the cosmos. Overall, the good news is that religion is fading out and is therefore less likely to pose problems in the future. In the USA, nearly 30% had no religion in 2021 according to Pew Research[12].
3.4 The blind spot of the specialist
Division of labour, or specialisation, underpins global prosperity. However, specialisation comes at a cost: of tunnel vision. The specialist interacts with many non-specialists but doesn’t pay attention to the motivations and logic of these interactions. He is entirely ignorant of how wealth and wellbeing is generated by markets and institutions. This blind spot and failure to see the invisible (which is what economics is mostly about) leads him to mechanical concepts about society, with simplistic generalisations. For example, he is likely to oppose big business, support big government and centralised decision-making, generalise about people’s religious beliefs and imagine himself to be superior to “the rabble”. These delusions cause no one any harm until, at some point in his career, he is promoted to guide the whole society, such as in the role of a chief health officer. It is then, in his ignorance, that he causes great harm.
3.5 Other barriers
Other barriers to a free and prosperous future include ultra-nationalism (jingoism), which is now thankfully restricted only to a few pockets. Then, there are mass-panics of the kind seen during covid. Since time immemorial, such pandemic panics typically start with panicked doctors; we need to find ways to ease medical panic. Another big barrier is the strong tendency, as predicted by public choice theory, for empire building and corruption in bureaucracies. Having worked in the bureaucracies of two countries, I can confirm that the corrupt almost invariably rise to the top. The global bureaucracy such as the UN and WHO, is far worse – these bureaucracies never pay the price (political or otherwise) for their endless misdemeanours.
Possible solutions
Our focus is to create the conditions of freedom for all people, to facilitate freedom. It is not our business to prescribe what people should do with that freedom. Once the institutions of freedom are in place, laissez faire should prevail. People should be free to think for themselves, experiment with new forms of living, create new goods and services, and generate new ideas without being afraid that the local policeman will come knocking at their door. It is not our business whether people have more or fewer children, whether they practice religion, whether they undertake community work or isolate themselves in their private world.
I emphasise this distinction between institutional frameworks for freedom and a hands-off approach after that, because even allegedly freedom-loving people try to prescribe to others how they should live. But not prescribing anything is precisely the point of it all.
Anyway, how are we to create or support institutional frameworks to liberate people from social and government tyranny? I outline possible ways, or solutions, below.
4.1 Education and debate to change people’s minds
The obstacles we face relate mainly to the mind: the way people think. Given limited availability of time, most people tend to adopt broad-based ideologies, general perspectives about society. Problems arise from ideologies which deny freedom to others.
Under the socialist ideology the government is considered to be the farmer and the people, livestock. The socialist is sure that he knows better for others than they know for themselves. The religious or nationalist ideology is equally sure of its superior wisdom. These ideologies, in which there is no space for others to think for themselves, are capable of resorting to violence to “persuade” others. In all cases we find hubris: over-confidence in one’s own beliefs coupled with disdain for those of others. The remedy is to foster the Enlightenment values of tolerance, open-mindedness and reason. And much humility.
Isn’t that easier said than done? It is, but we do have platforms through which such change can be progressed: a culture of debate, and education of children.
A culture of debate
Democratic debate and deliberation are vital instruments of change. While persuading people one person at a time is laborious, it is better than compulsion. We should encourage public forums for debate. And the press should make it a point to publish alternative viewpoints on topics on which experts have differing opinions. Social media platforms should resist the urge to censor debate.
An education system that imbibes Enlightenment values
Our schools typically don’t teach children to think critically; instead, they tend to bias children towards big government. Education must fortify our minds and develop in us a capacity to question everyone, including ourselves. Without deep questioning – deemed by some to be disrespectful of established “authority” – the totalitarian tendencies of fanatic believers in socialism, religion and nationalism cannot be defused.
Religion is particularly challenging. School teachers are unlikely to keep their job if they ask children to question their own religion. Any reform in religions such as Islam will therefore have come from within, or through public debates. But we have a better chance of defusing socialist and nationalist mythologies through schools. I have written books for children on critical thinking[13] and basic economics[14]. We need to teach children that letting people interact freely, subject to the rule of law, will yield better outcomes for society than central management. As F.A. Hayek noted, “[t]he curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design”.
4.2 Institutionalizing a transparent CBA approach for compulsion
While the golden goose of capitalism thrives on freedom, it can sometimes require regulatory oversight. Any such regulation (compulsion) needs to be fully justified and transparent. We should institutionalise, through the laws, a cost-benefit analysis requirement for all regulatory policy to assess whether compulsion is for the greater good.
4.3 First-principles reviews and continuous improvement of public policy
My recent (and currently ongoing) first-principles review of public health[15] confirms why the discipline, once a saviour of lives, now mainly causes harm. Public health abandoned its empirical, scientific roots over a hundred years ago and adopted socialist ideology. As a result, it has ignored the comprehensive empirical proofs against quarantine of healthy people, and imposed vaccine mandates that are not justified in any way. It also refuses to undertake a CBA of its policies, despite the founders of public health using CBA to justify sanitary regulations. As a result – at least in my view – most of public health needs to be dismantled and rebuilt from scratch.
Similar first-principles reviews are needed across all public policy areas, such as education, health, town planning and public funding of research. Each of these reviews needs to ask probing questions about the role of government. If any government intervention is found to be justified, then the review should identify the most cost-effective way to do so. It is particularly important during such reviews to consider widely differing opinions. For example, all “settled science” should be up for review from scratch, with all proofs re-verified.
4.4 Institutional reform to reduce concentration of power
Emergencies (real or imagined) have turned out be a great enemy of human wellbeing by empowering governments excessively. Such powers are rarely reversed when the motivating situation normalises. Powers available to governments during emergencies need to be curtailed – ideally by incorporating these limits in the constitution of the nation. Only full-blown war should be excuse enough to allow governments a temporarily increase in powers.
A related institutional reform would be to review and where possible, to disband as much as possible of the global bureaucracies. And since nations are created for people, not people for nations, we must embed the right to secede (with due process) in every national constitution.
How realistic are these solutions?
The solutions I am suggesting are likely to shatter into pieces as they dash onto the rocks of human nature. The tendency of bureaucracies to focus on empire building is not going away. Ugly power struggles in the political field will also remain. And vested interests that stand to lose from reforms will resist change.
Combined with these anti-reform forces (or “rocks”), is the weak demand for reform from consumers who can only expect small and incremental benefits from reform. The general public doesn’t have the headspace to think diligently about reforms. Most people seem to dislike intellectual work outside of their chosen occupation, they don’t even undertake elementary arithmetic to confirm whether their government is lying to them. And they have a naïve faith in government-appointed “experts”. Human beings, as the only irrational animal (in my view), are also hugely susceptible to panics and propaganda (Big lies). In brief, the demand for reforms is weak and dispersed.
The proposed solutions aren’t going to succeed easily. Change at the society-wide level is not only painfully slow, but any gains made are also easily reversed. For comparison, we can look back at enormous time and effort (and much suffering) it took to achieve what we can call “Phase I reforms”, that led to the industrial revolution. These new reforms, which we can call “Phase 2 reforms”, are even more challenging. We must prepare for the long haul.
Conclusion
While we are surely pleased with our high living standards and life expectancy today, there’s much work ahead to achieve a peaceful, happy, prosperous society for our future generations – in which freedom of thought and action prevails.
We can contribute to this goal by advocating for reforms and joining in public debates. Perhaps most importantly, we can educate our own children in critical thinking and enable them also to think more broadly about society. At each step, also, we can commit to the right action, dispassionate action: i.e. action without regard for consequences. This can involve resisting forces of corruption even at some personal cost.
[3] DeLong, J. Bradford (1998). “Review of Richard Easterlin’s Growth Triumphant: The Twenty-First Century in Historical Perspective (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, 1997)” in Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. 36, No. 1 (Mar., 1998), pp. 278-280.
[7] Bunker, John P (2001). “The role of medical care in contributing to health improvements within societies” in International Journal of Epidemiology, Volume 30, Issue 6, December 2001, Pages 1260-1263. https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/30.6.1260
“World population of 250 to 300 million would be ideal. So, bringing the population down to 95%… “
BORIS JOHNSON:
“All the evidence shows that we can reduce population and poverty in the world by encouraging libido, women’s equality, and contraception. “
BILL MAHER:
“I’m for the right of choice. Im in favor of assisted suicide I’m also for the usual suicide (… ) It’s just to tight. The planet is overinflated and we need to advocate for death. “
MARGARET SANGER:
“All our problems are the result of over-education of the working class. “
THOMAS FERGUSON:
“There is only one issue behind our whole work – we need to reduce the population. Either the governments will do it to us in a clean and fine way, or they will deal with the kind of chaos that we have in El Salvador, Iran or Beirut. “
BILL GATES (from the lecture on the overinflammation of the Earth from about 15 years ago):
“The world today has 6.8 billion people. It is on the way to approximately 9 billion. If they would do a good job with new vaccines, hospital care, and reproductive health services, they could perhaps reduce the population by 10-15%. “
KOFI ANNAN:
“The idea that an increase in the population guarantees a better life – economically or otherwise – is a myth that only those who sell diapers, strollers and the like can believe.” “
MIKHAIL GORBACHEV:
“Let’s reduce the population by 90% and there won’t be enough people left to be able to cause some major environmental damage. “
PRINCE PHILLIP:
“In the event I were reincarnated, I would like to return to Earth as a deadly virus to contribute to solving the problem of overinflammation. “
PENTTI LINKOLA (Finnish ecologist and eco-fascist who made a great influence on many green directions. He died at the very beginning of the pandemic, 87 years old):
“If there was a button that could be pushed, I would sacrifice myself without a second thought if it meant millions of people would lose their lives. “
JOHN HOLDREN:
“We need a program of sterilization of women after the second or third child, which is easier to implement than sterilizing men. “
Baronesa JANE GOODALL:
“Population growth is the very root of all the problems we’ve caused the planet. “
MAURICE STRONG :
“Or we will voluntarily reduce the population of the world or nature will do it for us, but brutally. “
JACQUES COUSTEAU:
“To stabilize the world’s population we need to eliminate 350 000 people per day. It’s terrible to say, but it’s just as terrible not to say it. “
DAVE FOREMAN ( longtime spokesperson of radical green power Earth First!. Up to the death of 2022 g was one of the most prominent eco and zoo-fascists): “My three goals would be to reduce the world’s population to 100 million globally, destroy all industrial infrastructure and thus restore wildlife throughout the world, with all plant and animal species.” “
The Government of the French Republic initiated and hosted the first of 14 International Sanitary Conferences in 1851 to standardize international quarantine regulations against the spread of cholera, plague, and yellow fever. During the 19th century, however, lengthy debates focused mainly on cholera. [source]
The conference rejected land quarantine as “unworkable and consequently useless” by a majority of 13 to 4 (France, Greece, Portugal, and Serbia), with 2 abstentions (Luxembourg and Switzerland). [source]
