Originally appeared on ' Liberalism.ro '
Collective or individual decision makers?
It is unfortunate that the terms in which the debate on the theme of icons in schools reflect disinterest for freedom. "To maintain or to remove the icons from the Romanian State schools?" Formulation of the problem itself hides the assumption that the decision must be collective, not individual. Whatever we respond, we are forced to assume that we all together-through the democratic mechanism of collective decisions, will have to decide the fate of all pieces of the wall of each classroom of every school of every town and village in Romania. But there are countless important decisions for all that you do not take collectively. Should we decide to collectively and a uniform price of milk in Romania? As a free market price for milk varies from quarter to quarter depending on the relative preferences of consumers, in a sequence of individual freedom, the distribution of icons on the walls of schools cuts shall be decided by way of dispersing decisions by students and teachers of the territory with regard to "their" walls.
Of course, they are not the owners of the walls. But even if the owner is the State, (collectively "us all"), the owner has the right to transfer the decision to others. Many tenants of the apartments rented space walls use ways so unimportant for the owner (i.e. the number of icons in the living room) that decision is left to the renter. In favorable conditions of transfer of Rights decision voluntarily, they go by those for whom the decision that matters more, the tenants. They are the ones who must see the walls on a daily basis.
For who matters more?
The market itself is a mechanism that facilitates the transfer of rights on the use of resources by those for whom it matters more. Resources allocated to market to those who are willing to pay more for them. The famous economist Ronald Coase theorem says that so long as the parties can change between them the right decision without any problems, even though initially the right belongs to that which does not matter so much, it will find it profitable to sell quickly, for that matter more. The transfer would be in the benefit of all. Unfortunately, this does not happen when transaction costs (the decision makers) are great. That is why, he says, the transactions would be very difficult, the initial allocation of rights is very important. A judge or a legislator should think twice, to whom it gives a right decision, because if you allocate to that in which it matters less, the other will not be able to take over or buy.
What would say if theorem icons? That if the right decision over the pieces of this wall of the classes in this school belongs to the Ministry or to Parliament, then, even if the student is from X to B the presence of icons in his right matters more than the matter to Minister Hârdău the right remains all Ministry. Sew we would advise you to allot originally right decision in the local area of the Board of Directors of schools or even local classes, so that eventually the local students and teachers, those for which matters more, are able to easily negotiate with one another right decision over agăţării images and display posters. This would allow a finely tuned according to the preferences of those involved.
The solution to the problem of discrimination libertariană
Why do I remove the right of schools to lessees display icons on the walls? The argument that made the discrimination rattled atheists, freethinkers, and those of different denominations. The solution to eliminate the right of local people to decide on the presence of icons, however, is deeply flawed. Discrimination means unequal distribution or uneven benefits between the parties or between the rights of the parties. Indeed, the solution to this problem must be a smoothing. It can be of two kinds: one party's advantage or eliminate, or add a symmetrical and the other party advantage. Or deny the right to display Christian symbols for those who wish to display Christian symbols, in order to equalize with others who don't want, or add a right inverse of displaying Christian symbols are different from those who do not want displaying Christian symbols. Or deny freedom and equalize the level of coercion, or add a corresponding freedom in the other side and increase the degree of total freedom.
"It is better That the smoothing? Constraining symmetric, symmetrical or freedom? " Lawyers serving "down", or symmetric constraint claim that the presence of an icon hung by a student from first bank first bank law offends its cargo through the intolerable symbolic power atheist/-cugetătorul/Muslim from the second Bank. Wonder how it is possible, however, that the "payload" of a symbolic icons to affect a non-believer? ^ Islam and are immune to it. The lawyer argued that secularisation will message sent icon agăţata of the little boy from first bank is a permanent power if non-Christian girl from the second bank knows that the boy be construed as an icon of his victory over them.
Libertariană solution of this problem is to allow jamming or blockage of the message came from the first bank with a symmetrically opposite sign message that you can convey little girl showing an array of Freud or Muhammad in her right bank. And now the situation is symmetrical, but in a way that increases the degree of total freedom.
Why the solution equals the maximum of freedom between individuals is preferable State of nötigung symmetrical? Simple: because the intensity of the message of power is based on symbolic story behind the image. If the boy himself did not believe in his own story, he would not be able to interpret its own gesture as a victory. And if the story behind the other symbol is always believed less than that which your own message then founded and sensitivity for the worse at the power of the other message is lower than the sensitivity the better to your message. The sum is positive. For each of them, the presence of both posts will be preferable to lack both posts. For each of them, the liberty will be symmetrical preferable of the symmetric constraint
The road to serfdom
Let's assume that the right decision is not going to be ceded to local individuals. To say that they will decide the secularization. A student will be able to order their cleverly priced a custom t-shirt with the figure of Christ. As you will be able to do the second job bank with Freud, Marx, Devil, Mahomet, Elvis Presley, Gregorian Bivolaru. Soon, however, the new field of manifestation of freedom will be won over by the State because "discriminatory" effect will be the same, although the condition of the walls will be empty. Recently, a new petition against discrimination will be submitted and the State will speed up again to resolve the situation through discriminatory prohibirea costumaţilor. The next equalization will be down-as well as from neighbors "civilized" French-prohibireaunoradintre these harmful within the walls of the school fantasy outfits (wave mahometan worn by Muslim girls and wear t-shirts with Christ). But why only them? The new situation created by the asymmetric expression of the freedom of expression of the Elvis cult followers or Bivolaru will have "corrected". So we return to school uniforms. But discrimination will occur again: why only in schools?
_____
Thank you my fellow Merrill and Horia Andrei King at the center of analysis and Institutional Development and to colleagues from the Association Liberalism.ro, particularly Tudor Galley and Sachi Emi. Discussions with them and with my friend Andrei Aaron I have clarified many of the ideas of the present.
