Fight locally, promote globally

Eternal fight

They move and shake the world. They conquer hearts and minds. They shape politics and economies. They shift the world to prosperity or to destruction. They are ideas. Simple concepts that a human mind generates. They are born in the mind of an individual and then their fate can be absolutely unpredictable. Ideas are like people: some are extremely successful while others pass unnoticed and unrecognized. It is not that noble, benevolent and virtuous ideas are guaranteed worldwide recognition and acceptance though the epochs and countries where they dominated flourished and prospered. People invented tools and mechanisms that increased their productivity and made their lives easier and longer. The human mind got enough inspiration to create masterpieces of art. People had more time for leisure and education. Had noble and virtuous ideas always had an upper hand the world would not have experienced bloody wars, terrorism and severe financial and social conflicts and crises.

Jaroslav Romanchuk, President of Scientific Research Mises Center                                                                April 2007

Dangerous, malignant and bellicose ideas often kidnap hearts and souls of the people much faster. They march around the world with zero tolerance to their opponents. They are like Attilas that use brute force, intimidation arguments and forgery to win the case and reign. Sometimes they do it through democratic procedures. In quite a few cases, ideas push people with weapons into making military coups.

As many people are driven by envy, greed and the desire to freeload, they often tend to support the destructive ideas that are wrapped in appealing and fashionable clothes. Their enthusiasm becomes much aggressive if they are led by charismatic popular leaders. The chance of their success increases if the democratic majority is not satisfied with their life and overwhelmed with fears and uncertainties.

People pay much more attention to their private life and work than to politics and civic activism. They tend to simplify cause-and-effect relations of the world and often ignore their key elements. Authors of noxious ideas make the best use of such behavior and present them in the most simplistic way. In some cases, these ideological propositions become just streams of rotten air. In other cases, they turn into bullets and bombshells. The most wicked ideas may turn into nuclear weapons and desert counties and even continents. They lead to casualties on worldwide scale and affect people long after their authors pass away. It takes a science to understand the birth, genesis and decline of ideas. It takes a human mind and heart to judge them on their merits and results.

Idea threat warning system

In the security system, it is widely accepted to talk about different level of threats. For better understanding they often are color-coded. Severe threat (red color) means very high probability of terrorist attacks. High risk is indicated by orange color, significant risk (elevated threat) – by yellow, general risk (guarded threat) - by blue color and low risk is coded with green color. In order to comprehend the threat and dangers that different ideas generate we apply the same approach. The risk from implementing the idea includes both the probability of its attack on a person and its potential gravity. We also estimate the validity of the information on the idea threat, how it was corroborated, whether this threat is imminent and what potential consequences are.

The five levels of idea threat are based on the following ten criteria:

1. level of direct threat to human lives and property;
2. level of political and economic monopoly and oligopoly (oligarch) threat, the level of state capture;
3. propensity to go international and to form international cartels, syndicates and other institutions to deprive a person of his inalienable right to choose;
4. level of freedom of expression and media;
5. level of civil society participation and its ability to control the state;
6. costs and consequences of implementation in concrete historical periods (human lives, economic costs, structural unbalances, unemployment, ecological footprint, depopulation);
7. impact on ethical standards and morals (family, attitude to work, achievement, property, crime, corruption)
8. impact on educational system and costs of “cleaning” it after it was corrupted with it (financial, human, institutional);
9. impact on culture and mass media, costs of changing ideological mainstream and media coverage;
10. readiness for change and ability to integrate innovation.

Classification of selected ideas based on their threat level

Red threat to liberty: ideas that kill

Some ideas have very strong lethal power. They do not immediately acquire it. Sometimes it takes centuries for an idea to become a deadly weapon. Socialist Utopia was described by T. Moore and many other early writers long before it became the political goal for the Soviet totalitarian state. The world went through the period of industrialization and mass migration to cities. They witnessed the emergence of affluent non-aristocrats, the people who made fortunes themselves from scratch. K. Marx and his predecessors boosted the power of such lethal ideas as “proletariat is the sole source of value and it must rule the world", “person belongs to state”, “property is theft” and “government knows better what is good for a person”. The ideologues of various forms of collectivism also performed the function of spin doctors to a host of other ideas that eroded individual, political and economic freedom. Communism and its close relative socialism ascended to the status of respectable, realistic political and economic matrix that completely distorted the reality.

The idea about race/nation superiority poisoned intelligentsia in many countries long before it became the foundation of fascism in Europe and lead to genocide, holocaust - dozens of millions of deaths. Before workers and youth accepted fascism and made it their own creed their educators, witch doctors and soul healers had to make it appealing and adequate to the way they perceived the challenges of the world.

            It would be impossible for the most dangerous ideas to overcome masses without their support by the people, quite a few businesses, educational institutions and intellectuals. The idea that Jews, masons, or the church are behind every big tragedy of the world is quite old and sadly still quite popular. Class hatred is deeply rooted in the extremely simplistic way many ordinary people perceive reality. They tend to blame others, usually the rich, the successful or the powerful in their grief, misfortunes and poverty. If the culture and mainstream ideology in a society does not protect a person, his property and the right to choose his own way of pursuing happiness the collectivists periodically tend to carry out a witch-hunt campaign.

            Hence, communism, socialism, fascism, Maoism and other deadly forms of totalitarianism are the systems that became real because intellectual elites, politicians, business community and media ignored red threat ideas in the context of uncontested envy, poverty and deep distrust in the individual. The result of making these deadly ideas come true is unprecedented human made tragedy: dozens of millions of deaths, genocide, concentration camps, ecological disasters and turning dozens of states into Orwellian animal farms.

range threat to liberty: ideas that accelerate liberty perdition

Some ideas are like viruses. They live among people in the dormant state. They do not pose immediate threat to lives of the people. They gradually erode their values and the institute of property. Ideas that “all people are equal and the same”, that “government is benevolent and its employees act like anointed angels”, that “property is theft and means of production must be controlled by the people” make a kind of ideological environment where lethal ideas spend their vegetation period.

Orange threat ideas make the foundation of severe interventionism, the system where man is officially believed to be too ignorant and too weak to decide for himself. With such ideas in the ideological mainstream, the state finds it quite easy to deprive a person of the freedom of choice. He cannot do business as he pleases. He cannot exchange with the people on the terms he considers most favorable. He cannot plan for his old age and cannot speak up his mind if it is not tuned with the mouthpiece of the government.

First people are brainwashed to believe that public property works better, that foreigners do not deserve to enjoy the same economic rights, that money, education or healthcare system are too important to be private. Then they accept the rule of those who promise them prosperity, risk-free life and happiness - for free. Freeloading at God’s or majority’s or society’s expense. This is how serfdom and slavery begin. The state used brute force and law to steal property. It discredits creators, property and market by sophisticated black PR-campaign. On the theoretical level interventionist witch doctors promote the concept of market failures. A creator comes up with new ideas to make life easier (electricity, telecommunication, water supply etc.). Then the state nationalizes these sectors and calls them “natural monopolies”. There is nothing natural about this kind of behavior. However, the state does not care about scientific evidence, facts and reality check. Politicians and nomenclature fool people by making up a utopia and calling it reality. Then they impose the rules of describing it and declare other opinions heresy.

It takes generations and tremendous costs to gain freedom again. Beating Attilas take knowledge, courage and resources. Breaking the regime of the most dangerous partnership of Attila and Witch doctor takes dedication and devotion to ideas, resources and perseverance. Freedom fighters should be equipped with intellectual ammunition, hard facts, organizational  and managerial skills and charisma.

Yellow and blue threats to liberty: ideas that cage and increase dependency

Yellow and blue idea threats form a broader ideological foundation for enemies of liberty. They are less aggressive and more subtle. They do not straightforwardly deny liberty. They cover it with a network of thin threads. They put people into a kind of legislative and administrative jelly. Yon can move but you can hardly excel. You do not starve but you never taste gourmet food. You can be a champion but only if you belong to the team of the state.

The state controls commanding heights of the economy and keeps a tight grip over education, mass media and social security. Politicians form a cozy one or two-party system and build a kind of managed democracy where the majority can easily restrict property rights as they see fit. On this stage, they do not dare ban private media or multi-party democracy yet but they introduce many restrictions that are aimed at establishing nomenclature rule and mainstream ideological monopoly. Eminent domain, financial market restrictions, licensing, zoning, progressive taxes, quotas, import tariffs, wage and price caps – these are just a few tools to cage freedom and increase dependency of a person upon the state. Driven by the totem of income equality people tend to support wide scale redistributive practices. They are offered a risk free life. Politicians and ideologues argue that the state is the most responsible risk taker as it represents the people and defends public national interests. Mesmerized by the spell of these clichés people entrust interventionists with more powers to take care of their lives. The majority rule turns into the democratically enforced violation of property rights, i. e. the right to life. It is the majority that serves as a cover-up for redistributing of resources from one sector to another, from private business to public entities, from “less socially important” projects to “national champions”.

            Witch doctors (ideologues, academicians, intellectuals, mass media people) are key figures in making yellow and blue threat ideas dominant. People have the impression that they still have the freedom of choice and they take an active part in governing their country. They are duped to believe that the government is omnipotent and omniscient and that it can create value out of thin air. Ideologues want people to believe that politician and government employees are a special breed of people – noble, benevolent and caring for others. As they arbitrarily exercise their powers and administer other people’s money often without control and efficiency standards one can hardly expect them to build any other system but the one that benefits them personally.

            Any welfare state is the system with a mixture of orange, yellow and blue color idea threats. The degree of intervention tells us what threats prevail. If the government redistributes 40% of GDP and more, if it is the sole provider of services in education, health, energy, telecommunication and pension, if the state owns more than 50% of all country’s assets and does not allow private ownership of land, if it confiscates more than 50% of personal income through progressive taxation then the country is in the orange sector of idea threat. The reduction of intervention moves the country to yellow and blue threat idea areas. If freedom fighters are passive or if they inadequately choose the means to fight with collectivism and interventionism less dangerous ideas are substituted by more perilous ones. The evidence that a country is in orange, yellow or blue idea threat zone is the indicator of economic freedom (Frazer Institute and Cato Institute), governance indicators (World Bank), Tax freedom day methodology, corruption perception index (Transparency International), indices on political rights and civil liberties (Freedom House), business climate indicators (World Bank) and a few others.

There is no idea threat free society

The fight for freedom never stops. Even in democratic politically free and full-fledged market economies, there is constant supply of the ideas that challenge and endanger liberty. It is natural as free countries do not ban free speech, scholar research and access of people with various views. It is natural as income inequality is objective and will always be with us. It is natural as people are different and in various situations that are driven not just by positive incentives but by envy, anger or disillusionment. It is their natural right to voice any opinion they have.

There were times that it was almost a scientific heresy to offer the state monopoly on legal tender. Gradually this orange threat idea crept into the mainstream and stayed their for good. Very few people saw the danger in the introduction of pay-as-you-go pension system in the end of the XIX century. However, the idea that the state is a better provider for old age welfare became dominant in the XX century and dramatically increased the threats for liberty. Slavery was abolished and the good idea that a person belongs to himself triumphed. At the same time the idea that the rich must share their wealth with the society resulted in introducing sever income taxes on the rich. If a person is forced to pay more than 50 – 60% of his income to the state, we can say that he is a slave of the society. Different totalitarian regimes used forced labor. In some cases, they even keep the institution of private property. It becomes meaningless as the state uses dozens of tools to make it static.

            The key function of the intellectuals in a free society (green idea threat level) is to keep the demand for ideas that injure and kill on a very low level. Freedom fighters should challenge them in the process of open philosophical, scientific and cultural competition. Ideas of liberty prevail and shape the society only when they are accepted voluntarily by the people – not imposed by the state (for example run by a classical liberal political party which got into power in the democratic elections).

It is important to keep in mind that we do not have a tabula rasa society. People acquire ideas from their parents, at school, from TV, mass culture and in the street. I’d argue that collectivism in ideology and interventionism in economy are uncritically accepted by many people by default. That makes the task of freedom fighters even more difficult as they deal with the people who have already shaped many views on the world around. It means that first they should convince the people that the collectivist default ideas are dangerous (stifle the demand for them) and offer the ideas of liberty in the most favorable light (supply of morally, socially and economically attractive ideas). It means they should have access to the people (educational institutions, mass media, culture and politics) via various institutions.

            Green idea threats are an integral part of any society. There is no such thing as idea threat free society. Longing for stability, risk averse institutions and welfare is a powerful driving force. As people are often brought up and form their mindset in the culture of dependency they tend to support the ideas and policies that potentially can benefit them in their adult life. They are told numerous times that markets are inherently unstable – and people agree with state intervention to give some human touch to them. They see how anxious people are about their jobs – and they tend to believe that foreigners steal them. Hence, they support anti-immigration policies and barriers against import.

They despise the arrogant ruthless and often uneducated rich and stand up for public education and media to ‘equalize chances in life”. People often feel sorry and are compassionate about the poor and they elect the politicians who promise the public social safety net to everybody. They have little doubt about its usefulness and even less information about its unintended consequences and administrative costs. Ordinary people have little time to learn about the cause and effect relations of the real world. They often do not see how politics influences their day-to-day lives. That is why they simplify what they cannot explain and turn complex relations of the real worlds into a cartoon-like figures and characters with almost graphic black-and-white attitude to life. They have a faint idea about self-regulation of the market but they do not mind having state regulation of telecom, railroads, post office or energy sector. They protect their property rights but do not abolish the government, which introduces eminent domain – just in case of some sort of emergency.

Parents have an eye on what their kinds watch on TV but they believe that other parents may not have much time for that and leave the job of monitoring mass media to the state. They are fully informed about the consequences of drug use. They do not buy them though they know where this stuff is available but they still agree to the complete drug prohibition whether it reduces the number of drug users and drug trade or not. They think they can resist the temptations that are damaging to their bodies and souls but they argue that there are many weak persons that need external guidance. As the state offers that why not accept especially if visibly this kind of assistance looks like charity, sounds like charity and in some show cases is charity?

            Hence, in any society there are ideas that threaten liberty. If left unchallenged they evolve into ideological armies that reduce or stifle freedom. If at first they seem innocuous or crazy and utopian under certain circumstances they can turn into devouring beasts that intervene into every aspect of the human life. If a child is put in the environment of thugs, drunkards, drug addicts and thieves or even if he is left to his own devices in the family of hard-working parent there are high risks that he will fall prey to Attilas or witch doctors, moochers and looters, freeloaders and collectivists. Hence, he will become a threat to liberty and will expand the majority that even in a democratic society support the ideas that kill with different speed though.

            To ensure freedom is to be always on the alert, to be always engaged in the fight with ideas that kill or poison. The fight is never over. It is the price we pay or rather it is the investment we make to ensure free choice in our personal, economic and social activities. That is why intellectual ammunition of freedom fighters, strategies and tactics of challenging lethal ideas, headquarters and institutions that train and provide guidance to freedom fighters should always be modernized, tuned to the realities of our age and mastered with the help of the latest achievement in natural and humanitarian sciences as well as technological and technical advancements.

Lost in interpretation

One the one hand it is very easy to formulate the idea to die for. It is freedom. For activists of the worldwide freedom movement it is an axiom. However, even among interventionists there are few people who would stand up openly against freedom. Liberté, egalité, fraternité are still quite popular notions among many anti-capitalism, anti-freedom organizations and institutions. Even the Kremlin and many authoritarian rulers do not mind having freedom in their countries. Of course they give people their own definitions and deny them the right to read the footnote that explains the difference.

Dozens of different definitions of freedom does not make the life of freedom fighters easier. Political freedom movement became amorphous and in quite a few cases it is plainly anti-freedom (anti-globalists, different hippie groups, environmentalists, feminists etc.). Most international organizations that actively promote interventionism (UN, IMF, OECD, OSCE, World Bank) also support freedom as they see it. As people really value liberty even modern socialists do not go against it openly. They erode it by their activities and semantic manipulations. It complicates the task of consistent freedom fighters who in many cases find it difficult to cooperate even with one another.

            Libertarians, objectivists, anarcho-capitalists, conservatists, classical liberals, misesians, rothbardians, monetarists – they are all for liberty but in their own slightly different way. Some people tend to exaggerate these differences and turn them into a yawning gulf. Defragmentation of worldwide liberty movement is one of the trump cards of collectivists and statists against freedom. That is why setting up a kind of standard of unity for liberty would be useful to promote good ideas and to fight against lethal ones.

            The meaning of the phrase “fighting for freedom” have some connotations that are peculiar to various countries. When I say that I fight for freedom in Belarus I mean fighting against the totalitarian state. Like its Soviet predecessor, it deprives the people of the fundamental political rights and civil liberties. The whole country is run like a big centrally planned factory where the owner, stockholders, creditors and the supervisory board are run by one person who self-appointed himself in an uncontested kind of political tender. A few opponents of the regime were kidnapped. Many businessmen and politicians fled the country. The authorities deny the fact that there are political prisoners (ex-presidential candidate A. Kozulin among them) in Belarus. Soviet communist dictators also claimed that their democratic constitution guaranteed citizens all human rights and liberties.

Activists of Belarusian opposition and members of their families are fired from work and denied. In the situation when the state created 80% of all jobs and controls employment of the small private sector (via inspections of dozens of organizations) being in the political and axiological opposition means to greatly increase the risks of living and family stability. In spite of repression and intimidation, many people actively fight with the regime. Thousands of people were jailed for taking pat in demonstrations and politician campaigns. They long for freedom that people in the West and most of ex-socialist countries take for granted. They are not interested in theoretical differences between libertarians, classical liberal and conservatives. They want to speak their native language and to pursue the happiness as they see it. They want to exchange value with others without the intermediation of the state. They want to have the people they share values with to represent them in the government and the parliament. They want to have justice and manage their own resources. Their protest and efforts are often not consolidated and coordinated. They often stand up against the person - the president or a bureaucrat. They rebel against the corrupt institutions of the state and injustices of the judicial system.

People in Belarus fight for the freedom that most Western countries take for granted. Even socialists in Europe, the USA and even developing countries do not want to deprive the people of freedom to the degree of a totalitarian state. That is why the meaning of the phrase “fighting for freedom” in Belarus and in the West has different connotations.

            A totalitarian state cannot be built and sustained without a strong ideological foundation. It would be impossible for the Belarusian ruler Alexander Lukashenko to get more than 50% of the support if all sorts of life and liberty threatening ideas are not widely accepted in Belarus. One of the ideological pillars is the peculiar and unique nature of Slavic peoples. They allegedly have their own understanding of democracy and values. They are superior to others. Spreading chauvinism creates very dangerous consequences not only in Belarus but in Russia and Ukraine. Another red threat idea that is still supported in Belarus is that the workers produce all the goods and must govern the country ignoring the selfish private interests of entrepreneurs. People have never seen true political and economic competition in action. They learn about free society from state mass media and the western socialist culture (literature, movies, paintings). That is why they do not want to support that society that from their perspective is just about uncle scrooges, the greedy, corrupt politicians and bureaucrats.

Yellow threat ideas are even more widely spread. A. Lukashenko is addicted to the principle of equality because the majority of Belarusians share it. After more than 70 years of the Soviet totalitarian state people can hardly accept the thought that they have a choice. In spite of the horrible track record of the state’s governance they still tend to believe that the government is benevolent and that ministers and politicians know better. It is like freeing an animal from the zoo: there are many moments when freedom seems to be a very heavy burden.

After the Soviet era of chronic deficit, iron curtain travel bans and total restrictions ordinary people experienced the choice of goods in shops and enjoyed going abroad. They believe that this is it, this is freedom and they should not ask for more. As the state still claims to neutralize all risks of living, they tend not to put this pledge into scrutiny.

Belarusian regime realizes the dangers of modern education and information. That is why it keeps a tight grip over mass media and especially television. It fully controls the educational system and the access to the world science. Internet is restricted only during political campaigns. It is closely monitored by the authorities. Besides, in many cases it is a means to divert attention and energy of youth from fighting with the regime. The majority of internet users visit entertainment web sites. They ignore the information about free market, democracy and politics. Cyber life inadvertently contribute to the relative stability of the Belarusian regime. So do dachas (out of town houses where households grow fruit and vegetables). More than 90% of Belarusian households have additional income from dachas and gardens. It provides extra social safety net and channels of a lot of physical and psychological energy to non-political agricultural work. The fact that the shadow economy amounts to over 50% of GDP is evidence that people have adjusted themselves to the stifling grip of the state as much as they can. They pay little attention to active protests and resistance as they the risks of “shadow” economic activities are lower than the risks of open political and civic resistance.

The network that is bound to win

People in Belarus and other post-Soviet countries have never had a chance to fully grasp the ideas of liberty, democracy and free market. That is why freedom fighters have to be careful while presenting the ideas than should challenge red, orange, yellow and even blue threat ideas of collectivism and interventionism. Choosing the form (words, metaphors, similes etc) is as important as selecting adequate facts and illustrations to win the battle of ideas. Freedom is the ultimate idea to die for. Thousands of people all around the world showed remarkable courage, integrity and determination in their fight against the state-enslaver.

People challenged red and orange threat ideas and got the support of the masses. It is much more difficult to get this kind of consensus or even the majority support if people are confronted with yellow, blue and green threat ideas. People are not likely to die for lowering taxes, privatization, foreign trade liberalization, deregulation of infrastructure sectors or introducing private pension accounts. Though these issues are legitimate in the fight for freedom they are not likely to consolidate the society to the point when the majority would stand up against the oppressive state. They are considered too technical. They do not represent the form in which the idea generates the moral call for an open fight.

It is important to look for the statements, mottos and slogans that touch sensitive moral strings of a human soul. Touching these chords lead us to liberalization of people from the cage of lethal and poisonous ideas. One of the sources for such kind of ideas is popular wisdom expressed in proverbs, axioms and set expressions. “Honesty is the best policy”, “Look sharp! Catch liberty”, “Socialists rush where angels fear to tread”, “Bureaucrats make rods for your back! “You cannot have you cake and eat it unless you rob others”, “The cowl does not make the monk – shallow declarations do not make a freedom fighter”, “Liberal is as liberal does”, “Freedom breeds generosity”, “Poverty is a sin of the government”, “Virtue and benevolence of private property”, “State pension fund motto: live fast, die young”; “Government does not finance problem solution. It creates them”. Powerful liberal messages make the best use of all possible stylistic devices. They also take into account the peculiarities of the language and the cultural context. Putting ideas into the appealing verbal clothes is a big challenges for freedom fighters.

Another challenge is to adjust the message to various audiences. Students, school teachers, entrepreneurs, political parties’ activists, journalists or pensioners want to know answers to concrete questions. They vary from taxes, budgetary policy, inflation and how to save money to labor market, corruption, competitiveness, healthcare and education reform and old age security. Presenting a free market alternative in the comprehensive form is a key to their minds and hearts. Being professional, competent, knowledgeable and agreeable is another. As you very often do not have a second chance to meet many people in the audience you should do your best in each group to attract attention and persuade people to come back to you. While dealing with various audiences it is important to be ready to deal with any question and request. Intellectual “baits” are as diverse as people’s interests. Books, statistical data, DVDs, music, articles, magazines and advice – anything can ignite a person’s interest in what you say and do and then – in what you believe. In the environment intensely shaped by hazardous ideas, the challenge is to persuade a person to invest some time in studying or just surfing the information (data, article, book) that he has never come across before.

The process of narrowing the scope of “radical ignorance” - as Austrian school of economic calls it - is difficult and time consuming. It does not mean that people are not susceptible to ideas of liberty. They just do not know enough about them and their ignorance naturally generates suspicion, indifference, caution and sometimes even aversion. People all over the world are afraid of change. In post-socialist countries, this fear is magnified by the system they live in and by the experience they and their parents and friends have acquired. Hence, it is a big mistake to start promoting ideas of liberty by stepping on and hurting people’s most sensitive places. Tuning freedom movement’s agenda to match the concerns and interests of the people is essential to neutralize lethal ideas.

Belarus, Russia, Ukraine and even many post-socialist countries of the Central and Eastern Europe experience a post-totalitarian traumatic ideological syndrome (PTTIS). Gurus of the communist past lost much of their luster but new ideologues stepped in with moderately modified agenda. Most of them came from the West. They had degrees from prestigious universities and offered loans, technical assistance, training and investment. The price they required in return was formal democracy, human rights, freedom of the media, building basic market institutions and accepting other norms and standards of such institutions as UN, OSCE, IMF, World Bank or OECD. “Washington consensus” turned to be another example of how good intentions led to ideological hell, complete confusion and disillusionment of the people.

Politicians, mass media, educational establishment and business talked about freedom, liberalism, democracy and the virtues of market economy whereas what people saw and experienced with great pain and confusion was corruption, oligarchs, comeback of jungle laws, humiliating impoverishment, unemployment, loss of life long savings, moral degradation, tastelessness of mass culture and nihilism. As a result, they acquired the PTTI syndrome. Its symptoms are aversion to politics, ideology, voluntary social activism, prevalence of monetary income incentive, distrust of anything with “liberal” or “democratic” attributes, and post-modernist type of nihilism and relativism like “nothing is sacred, nothing is certain, nobody is a hero”.

            Freedom fighters (I mean libertarians, classical liberals, objectivists and representatives of a few other schools of thought) got trapped between the lethal ideas (red, orange and yellow) of the totalitarian past and poisonous ideas (blue, green) of the interventionist present. Very limited access to mass media, educational institutions and severe deficit of the works of classical liberal thinkers in native languages added to the gravity of the situation. In addition, freedom fighters did not produce comprehensive policy alternatives to the post-socialist countries and mainstream recipes were widely accepted and introduced almost uncontested.

Totalitarianism, interventionism of different degrees and institutional shapes are doomed to generate political, financial, ecological and moral crises. Freedom fighters always have a chance to influence the battle of ideas. This battle is never won in the short-run. It is a long-term endeavor. It requires perseverance, consistency, integrity, constant fine-tuning to reality and the popular appeal. The war of ideas we are waging today was started by our great predecessors R. Cantillon, C. Menger, E. Böhm-Bawerk, L. Mises, F. Hayek, F. Machlup, I. Kirzner, A. Rand, M. Friedman, J. Simon and many other outstanding thinkers. Atlas Economic Research Foundation, CATO Institute, Heritage Foundation, American Enterprise Institute, Competitive Enterprise Institute, Foundation for Economic Education, Institute of Economic Affairs, CIPE, Institute of Humane Studies, Objectivist Center, Hayek Institute to name just a few are honorable, worthy and highly respectable followers of the freedom movement pioneers. The size, scope and contents of the modern freedom movement inspires optimism. The networking of such tremendous intellectual, moral and cultural capital is bound to generate a powerful synergetic effect. For the first time in history freedom movement will have a chance to become a major ideological power player in the world. Today it has become truly international. It is ready to challenge collectivists and interventionists on all fronts: philosophical, academic, educational, media, policymaking, cultural and moral.

            One of the themes of the popular cartoon movie “Happy Feet’ is that every person should have his heart song. It is the song that is a metaphoric description of each individual’s right to pursue happiness as he sees fit. It means a kind of activity where she or he excels, enjoys and through which she/he can participate in the international freedom movement. Actually this heart song does not necessarily come in the form of a song. It can be scientific research, teaching, writing, doing business, making movies, painting, charity work or preaching. Our thirst for freedom fuels our heart songs. So let’s sing! Each of us being a part of the great international freedom movement the songs for freedom can hardly sound like cacophony. Though we sing them in different languages and we live in diverse cultures the very song that we generate is very likely to become the magic tune of freedom people will sing all over the world. By doing that they hail the virtues of capitalism. It is the system worth fighting for. It is the system worth living for.