Individual Freedom and the State

Individual Freedom and the State

By

Pyae Sone Aung, Ei Mon Mon Kyaw, Nyan Lin Htut, Aung Thu Htet, Jue Jue, Aung Zaw Hein, Kun Soe Htin Aung, Nyan Myo Aung

(Students of Introduction to Political Science

At

Yangon School of Political Science-YSPS)

July 15, 2015

Yangon, Burma

Individual Freedom and the State

1.Introduction

When we talked about individual freedom, we used to refer to the liberalism. It is very comfortable for us to talk about what Thomas Hobbes had said, what John Locke had argued, and what Adam Smith had proposed. But, when someone asks a question, “Do you mean one kind of Liberalism or many kinds of Liberalism?” we are confused to draw the differences between many forms of liberalism.

To answer to the above question, we would like to start from the same point in many kinds of Liberalism. It is in all liberal theories that individual freedom is the highest value. In one state, when socio-political institutions are instituted, they must not be for the coercion of the individual but for promoting the individual freedom. The function of the state is limited only to protect the life, liberty and property of an individual. For that function, limited government is “the necessary evil.”(1) The proponents of the above ideas are called Classical Liberals. They include John Locke, Thomas Paine, Jefferson and Adam Smith.

In the modern age, there are two different kinds of liberalism. The first is called the Libertarianism. The Libertarians also propose minimal government. Thus, they claimed themselves they are classical liberals. But, there are some differences between Classical Liberalism and Libertarianism. The anarcho-libertarian said that the government is not the necessary evil but the unnecessary evil. Another point that could not be found in the classical liberalism is that libertarian like Nozick argues not to criminalize prostitution, drug-taking and unorthodox sexual activities. As Nozick put it, those are “the victimless crimes.”(2)

The second group is named welfare state liberalism. The liberal in this group propose that the government should take active part in promoting the individual freedom. They support the governmental activities that would provide the social security to the least advantaged. The Libertarians criticize them that they are trying to spoil the origins of the classical liberalism,(3) the people have to give much power to the government in the welfare state, and that means liberty is in the potential danger of governmental restriction.

In this paper, we have sided with the classical liberal and the Libertarian. On the ground of proposing the limited government and promoting the individual freedom, we have argued that individual freedom is a necessary thing according to the human nature, democracy which stands on the majority support is not synonymous with individual freedom, government intervention in the economy and civic life is not effective, and how to abolish or alter when the government encroaches upon our rights.

2. Human Nature and the Individual

There are millions of people in the world. They may be different in region, or ethnicity, or belief. It is certain that those different peoples would have different opinions and beliefs. But there are some political systems and educational systems which regard those differences as the danger to unity or social conformity. Those systems are designed to put all different people under the same belief. In those systems, many social conformists could be produced but an individualist is likely to be suppressed or humiliated.

Another powerful factor which promotes social conformity is the religion. There may be different kinds of religions. But they are the same in one thing. That is promoting social conformity. Any religion will not accept the idea or opinion that is contrary to its basic principles. Here, there is a question on such political systems, educational systems and religions. Is social conformity compatible with human nature, and adaptable to the changing world?

Everybody who understands human nature, will not deny that each person has his or her own self-beliefs or self-concepts. At childhood, a person thinks his experience is reality. Through the interaction with his perceived reality, he becomes organized as a consistent self-concept, and later behaves in accordance with his self-concept.(4) Someone may ask a question, “Why are the people different in beliefs, who live in the same region, are the same in culture, language and religion?”. It is true that they have the same major external factors which are very powerful in conditioning human behavior or structuring a person’ self-concept. But every person has his specific individualistic experiences no one has faced. Thus the people have different self-concepts.

The person who behaves according to his self-concepts, are consistent in his thought and action. But his self-concept is not static. He would like to change his self-concept in order to be adaptable to the new challenges. Hence, there is consistency between his self-concept and experiences. That kind of person is called “a fully functioning person” by Carl Rogers, a theorist of Humanistic Education. That person possesses the flexibility and adaptability because he is constantly aware of his new experiences.  In other words, that person could be named “an individualist”.

As an individualist is open to new experiences, he is very creative. Creativity is very important in the society. Without creativity, we still have to live in a cave, be frightened of the lightening and darkness, and worship the fire as holy thing. And we still have to approach to a shaman when a person feels ill. Without individualistic and creative thinkers, human beings would have been the slaves of the nature and wild animals.

Though individualists have brought happiness and progress to the humanity, the social conformists have attempted to suppress them in many ways. In the name of God, the pope, one of the leaders of social conformity, had condemned Galileo’s scientific approval of Copernicus’s Helio-centric Theory that the earth is revolving around the sun.(5) That observation is contrary to the Christian teachings that all planets including the sun are revolving around the earth. In the name of Divine Right, the bigotry monarch had suppressed the people along the centuries. Nowadays in the world, we could easily see the advantages of the society which has a room for an individualist, and the disadvantages of the society which only encourages social conformity.

In the modern age, there are many kinds of scientific findings which are published daily. Before the modern age, landing on the moon will be fairy tale, and the social conformists would have still thought of the moon as an abode for the angels. They would have still believed that the earth is a flat disc. What are the underlying differences between the society before and after the modern age? The first difference is lack of individual freedom. Without individual freedom, no one could express his thoughts or observations to communicate with other people. In this way, the society was under the longer control of the social norms and beliefs, members in it commonly accepted. As a result, there would be no progress in the society.

The second difference is undermining or appreciating human reason. In medieval age, human reason has been fettered with the Christian values. People sought the truth not by his own observations or reason, but in the holy books. The modern society is different. It has unleashed the chains of human reason. By human reason, the people have started to develop the new socio- political system which is consistent with the changing situations. In such society, we could explore new findings and make new progresses. Finally, human being, a weak creature in the wild nature, becomes the master of the nature. Therefore, we should not forget the forces which free human being from the slaves of nature to become the master.

Some philosophers had thought that human beings are aggressive. Thomas Hobbes, the author of Leviathan, is one of them. He wrote that a person had to restlessly fight against another person for his self- preservation in the state of nature. To guarantee the security for everyone, he claimed that an absolute monarch is necessary. His political system is based on his perceived human nature. But his supposition on human nature is in the light of Thirty Years War.(6)

Nowadays, psychologists said, according to their client-centered results, that human beings are self-regulating, rational, and socialized. They also admitted that human beings have anti-social emotions- jealousy, hostility and so on. But they explained that those emotions are just spontaneous impulses, the basic impulses are love, belonging and security, and anti-social impulses arise just as reaction to the frustration of basic impulses. Generally, the people are cooperative, constructive and trustworthy.(4)

History teaches us that all socio-political and economic systems could not stand longer if they were not consistent with basic human nature. Monarchy, Aristocracy, Socialism, Fascism and Dictatorship could not stand still on the earth because there provides no room for an individual freedom. In the present age, only democracy is the system most people in the world enjoy, because they think that democracy could secure individual freedom. But there are some defects in the democracy. The largest defect would be its foundation on majority rule and common interest.

3.Boundary of the Common Interest

It is after the fall of the Berlin wall, the symbol of the Cold War that many states were in democratic transition. Mostly, those states had experimented with the Socialism, and had tasted the bitterness of it. In a Socialist society, the people were ruled by one-party system, their property was confiscated, and their political and economic freedom was restricted in the glorious name of Socialist Revolution. Political dissents were imprisoned, tortured and killed without any trial (when there was a trial, the judges were under the command of the Executives). In the end, communist heaven for the proletariat and farmers was lost into thin air, and instead only “the New Class,”(7) the privileged ones in absolute control of the State power, had taken root.

In the light of those situations, the people would like to restructure the new system, which can guarantee their freedom. The new one they have chosen is democracy. Hereby, there arises a question we need to answer, “Could democracy secure freedom?” The reason they would like to change the socialist society is they abhor the oppression upon any individual by one class or one group or one dictator. Could democracy as well avoid “the tyranny of the majority”(2) upon the minority or an individual?

We think democracy is very likely to be degenerated into the tyranny of the majority because the democratic governments are popularly elected. That means they have to represent their electorate .And they have to give a special favor on the policies the large number of people enjoy among the electorate in order to win enough votes for representation in the government.  As a result, they have to neglect some minority’s or an individual’s concern. But Rousseau, theorist of the Social Contract, argues that every person had been incorporated as an indivisible part of the whole body or a form of association, which represents “the general will or common interest.”And he continued that when an individual person refused to obey the general will, he had to be “forced to free.” (8)

In his argument, there is a contradiction in terms, using “forced to be free”. The meaning of ‘free’ is completely opposite to the very definition of ‘forced’. By replacing this phrase with ‘un-free freedom’, we think Rousseau’s meaning will be the same as before. In fact, freedom can’t coexist peacefully with coercion or physical force, which is used to intervene in its sphere in which every individual person’s life, liberty and property are secured. Thus, we think Rousseau need to define exactly to what extent his force is justifiable.

Another ambiguous term Rousseau had used is the whole body or a form of association. He might think it could represent the general will, and that will is more important than an individual will. In his thought, the association composed of every individual is artificial human body which has the same ego, the same action and the same purpose like a real human being does. Just like the real human body composed of millions of cell in which every action of the cell is to support healthiness of the body, he had assumed every participant in the association as a cell of the human body.  That means every individual has to obey the general will of the whole body or association.  It is one of the fallacies of Rousseau’s Organismic Theory that he had reduced the life of every human being to a non-living cell.  Although non-living cell may follow the physiological order of the human body, human beings are living creatures and different people have different kinds of feelings and interests. Thus an individual’s interest may go against the general will.

Another point we should think critically is the general will or common interest. In a democratic state, a dictatorial rule may emerge putting on the good face of the common interest. It could make every person feel good to speak of or hear the reason that somebody’s decision or action is for the sake of the common interest. On the other hand, it implies that some members in the society had to sacrifice their interests. It is a very detestable maxim that common interest is more important than an individual interest.

In fact, an individual is a thing existing in reality, but the whole body, representative of the common interest, is just an imaginative one. For instance, an individual named Mg Ba is really existing because we could see or touch him to approve that he is a real existence. Therefore, Mg Ba’s interest must exist as well. After proving the real existence of an individual, let us take consider of the general term such as Man. The term ‘Man’ could be applied to every male individual. That may be Mg Ba or Mg Hla or Mg Mya. But Man does not have a real existence because this term could not represent someone exactly. His artificial existence depends upon the collective use of the term ‘Man’ by every really existing individual. Logically, the general terms such as Man, Society, and Common Interest represent only nothingness, and such nothingness could not have any kind of interest. Therefore, we believe that an existing individual’s interest is more important than an artificial common interest as a really-existing thing is more precious than nothingness.

The proponents of Common Interest just like the nationalist, the utilitarian, and the realist used to make an argument that interests of some people, or an individual have to be sacrificed as the common interest, which is the good thing for all, is more important. Let us assume common interest is the whole and an individual is a part of the whole. Is it logical in consistency that they are talking about the good for the whole, while undermining the good for some parts in it.? Actually, they are talking of the good for the larger pieces of the whole minus some parts. Thus their common interest is not the common interest for all, but ‘some interest’ only for larger group.

One of the opponents of common interest or “Common Good”(4), is Joseph Schumpeter. He claimed that there is no such thing as a common good all people agree on by rational argument. (8) His point makes obvious that it is very difficult for us to define a common interest. But though difficult in defining what is common interest , there is an acceptable one for us if it comply with our two principles- 1.Non-Exclusivity, and  2.Jointness of Consumption.(9)  We accept the common interest which does not exclude any group or individual, and could be consumed by every individual person.

We also disagree with the slogan of the utilitarian- “the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people.” It reveals that the two values on which the utilitarian’s theory is based on, are the number of persons and happiness. In such theory, what kind of happiness they like to mention? Is whatever kind of happiness acceptable for them whether it hurts somebody or not? And another point they need to consider is that the number of persons could not change the truth. When someone kills another one, it is a crime. In the same way, when large number of people kills someone, it is still a crime.

Let us create a virtual world in our mind, in which there are millions of vampires but there are a little portion of human beings. There is an intensive debate there whether human beings should be killed or not. But the vampires are very democratic, and they will practice a democratic voting system to settle this problem. Each vampire or each human being has to cast a vote. After counting the votes, needless to say, vampires win the right to kill the human beings in order to get the flesh and blood they want to enjoy. That will be a satisfactory result for the utilitarian because it could make the greatest happiness for the greatest number of vampires.

Alexis de Tocqueville, who feared “tyranny of the majority” just like in the above-mentioned world, said that justice is the boundary of each people’s right. (8) But we need to elaborate what are the elements of justice we like to mention. We think that protection of life, liberty and property should be the element of justice. In a free society, neither large number of people nor anyone should hurt the life and property of an individual, and intervene in his or her private sphere, regardless of common interest or common good or general will, or the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people, or any reason.

Therefore, the people in democratic-transitioning states should be aware of the defects of the democracy as well, and should understand that democracy is not synonymous with individual freedom or liberty. If not so, the people who abhor the oppression or restriction on freedom would have to face a new form of oppression and restriction. The point they should not forget is that democracy is just the means, only liberty is the end. To secure liberty in a democratic system, small state is the best possible form because the big state is the potential danger to it.

4.Small State

(a)Small But Strong Army

In the state of nature, everyman has the only power. This power is the might. The mightier man can defeat the less one and enslave him or her. The mightier man can confiscate another one’s property. As Thomas Hobbes put it, it is “the war of all against all.”(10)  In light of that situation, the mightiest man who could defeat anybody, might had to be created to give security on the life and liberty of every individual.  This is the artificial body composed of every individual. This body is called the State. In such a way, the State had gradually evolved taking in many forms. But it is in our view that the end of its functions is to protect the life and liberty of its members.

There is a difference between the state of nature and the modern state. In the state of nature, every person could use his physical force to find the truth and seek the justice in the disputes. Though the mightier one could dominate over others, other people could form the group to defeat the mightier in turn. In fighting each other, their weapons might be just sticks and stones. It is very different in the modern state. Nowadays, only the state has monopolized “the legitimate use of physical violence”,(11) and other groups could rarely revolt against the state when the state is too oppressive, because the weapons of the modern state are technologically too advanced. This point is too obvious in Syria, the civilians are still fighting very hard to dethrone the dictator, Assad.

In post-colonial countries just like Burma, the people started to form the standing army after the independence. The history of the past colonization was frightening the people. They would like to build a strong and ever-ready army to fight back the territory-aggressors, and to protect the external sovereignty of the state. Later, the military became the most powerful organization. On the other hand, the political leaders were unfamiliar with the new political systems because they had known only the monarchial form of government before colonization. In such situations, civilian control over the military became loose, the military leaders started to stretch out his muscles to suppress the people instead of fighting the aggressors. The conflict between the military and civilians becomes a long history.

It is not only the military government that uses physical violence over the people, but also includes every form of government. The historical events along the centuries to the present day, could be reduced to the conflict between men and state. In Monarchial state, or Aristocratic state, or Socialist state or Military state or even in Democratic state, the people had to challenge against the brutal oppression and restriction of the state. It is natural tendency that the group who possess all the power of physical violence, would like to use that power in order to achieve the goals. Mostly, the goal is to sustain power in their hands. As we have already pointed out, the state is naturally an evil.

The more powerful the evil becomes, the more danger for the people. If so, how to make an evil weaker? In the government, the military is the most likely to make physical violence. When the standing army is composed of lots of permanent soldiers, naturally it is the danger of potential violence to the people. And, it is also the burden for the people to cover the high military spending with their tax.(9) Thus, we need to reduce the numbers of soldiers in the military, and build good relationship between the military men and the people. On the other hand, we need to take consider on how to make the defense system still strong. The point is how to make a small but strong army.

In order to achieve a small but strong army, we think there needs to be only a small number of soldiers who could be used in emergency situations, and the permanent military trainers. As an alternative point, every people should be given the necessary military trainings at the fixed age. In this way, we can reduce the high military spending. And it is very likely to build good relationship between the military men and the temporary soldiers or civilians.

On the other hand, every citizen will become capable men to fight in the war. It is the true defense system, we think. Invading in one state by another state is not only threat to the sovereignty of the state, but also threat to every single member because the state-sovereignty comes from its members. Therefore, protecting the sovereignty of the state is every citizen’s concern, just not only a small group of soldiers’ concern. If not so, the doctrine that the military just like Burma Army is the protector and benefactor of the state and everybody should thank to the army, would consume every individual’s life, liberty and property completely.

(b)Economy

After the end of the Second World War, there was a greatest enemy to the liberalism. It is Socialism. The rivalry between the two had been so intense during the Cold War, that the world could generally be divided into the liberal world, and the socialist world. The politicians, diplomats and historians might explain the events in those times, in different perspectives. In our opinion, a variety of different events in those times could be explained simply as the philosophical conflicts between Liberalism and Socialism.

The first conflict between Liberalism and Socialism, is the property. Liberals believe that every person has the right to private property, and the state should secure it. In contrary to the Liberals, the socialists argue that private property is the source of inequalities and conflicts between different classes, and it should be replaced by the common or public property.(12) They also used to criticize the Liberals, they are the advocate of the bourgeoisie, and the right to private property is in the interest of the bourgeoisie.

To justify the abolition of private property, socialists used to recall the primitive society, in which there was no private property, and the properties were shared by all members in the voluntary associations.(12) We would like to argue that socialists are missing one initial point in justifying their theory. This point is that they failed to regard a person as a property. When we take account a person as a property as Locke did, it can be assumed that every individual is born as a person whose private property is his or her body and so private property is the natural right. Therefore, a person has the sole sovereignty over his or her body.(6) No one has the right to enslave someone, and has the right to physically hurt or damage an individual.

Let us look back on the states which had experimented with those two different formulas. The states which practice socialism, include the former Soviet Union, China and Eastern Europe. In China, Mao started with communal ownership in the agriculture. As a result, the agricultural productivity had fallen, and widespread famine had killed millions of people. When Deng Xiaoping abolished the communal ownership in the agriculture, the productivity had arisen markedly.(13)

In the socialist states, economy is state-planning which generally means that there are nearly almost no private-owned businesses, and every business is state-owned. In this case, the state needs a very big bureaucracy. In Soviet Union, the big bureaucracy uncontrollably led to the widespread corruption. And the very worst thing in the socialist states is that the apparatus of the state became the mechanism to oppress the people.(14)

History revealed untrue about the socialists’ pessimistic accusation on private property. In the socialist era, the lands, businesses and banking are confiscated as public property by the state. After nationalizing those properties in the name of building an egalitarian society, a small numbers of the bureaucrats had used them in their interests. As a result of no right to the private property, every land is easily confiscated, and the crops were bought by the state. The state-given price was lower than market price. Every property of the land, water and air is naturally owned by the state, according to the socialist laws. (15) Hence, some property like the land could not be easily exchanged without the permission of the state. From the above points, we could draw a conclusion that the right to private property is not only in the narrow interest of the bourgeoisie, as the socialists criticize, but also in the interest of the proletariat and the farmers.

In socialist state, there is no incentive to motivate a person to do his or her best in the work because everybody has to do in the general interest of the whole society. It is usual in such circumstances that a number of regulations and rules have to be promulgated by the state, to force every person to do what the state wants him or her to do. It does not fit well with the human nature. According to human nature, an individual knows its interest more than anyone, and wants to do his or her best in seeking self-interest. Self-interest is the strong motive to make an individual initiative, and encourages creativity. In such a way, the world would lead to the better world.  State intervention could retard this kind of progress.

The liberal economy is totally different from the socialist economy. Liberals support the maxim that every person is entitled to the private property. They also want less rules and regulations in the economic affairs, and oppose state intervention in the economy. They believe that free competition between individual interests would lead to a harmonious society. As Adam Smith, the author of Wealth of Nations, put it, “an invisible hand”(15) will regulate the free market automatically without the need of state intervention. The above conception could be called “economic liberalism”.

There is another kind of opponents to economic liberalism. They are welfare statist. Their doctrine is that everybody doesn’t have equal opportunities, and the state needs to impose some taxes on its members in order to provide some social security services to the disabled, the elder, and the unemployed. We would like to criticize this doctrine from the different angles. Firstly, according to the principle of private property, no one could take our property without our voluntary permission. Although we could buy, or sell, or exchange, or donate our property as we see fit, no one could not claim the right to take our property either by force or law. As Murray N.Rothbard put it, taxation is robbery.

Secondly, even though we pay the taxes, we could not get back some governmental services in some situations. Let us suppose you are a bachelor and don’t have any children to provide school fees. But the government imposes tax on you for the compulsory education program. In such case, we could not get any profit by paying our property to the government. Thirdly, the social security program would encourage the extension of the governmental activities. In other words, it means that the power of government becomes bigger. That is a potential threat to the individual freedom- the bigger the power, the smaller the sphere of individual freedom.

Another point is our suspicion on government’s efficiency and honesty. Could we ask for the government to pay back our money when it is corrupted or not efficient in providing the services? Normally, we could get back our money when we borrow it to someone. But we can’t from the government. We think the above social security case could be sort out in our free society without government interference. Think back the time there was no government. How did people solve the problem at the time?

As John Locke put it, the society is prior to the state.(6) In the free society, the functions of the state could be replaced by the voluntary associations. It is very obvious in some emergency cases that the voluntary associations could perform more efficient and faster than the government. For example, when the natural disaster broke out in Burma, the government is the late-comer and only the voluntary associations are the first-helper to give assistance to the victims. The volunteers in the associations collected the money, food and clothes from the people in the society. But there was some corruption over the resources within the government. Some of the food was sold for profit within the market by the government, without providing the victims.

Therefore, the Libertarians like Charles Murray oppose to the government intervention in the economy and civil life, on the ground that it is ineffectual, and it displaces the civil response when the problem develops.(9) We also agree with him because our society is not the society of children, but the society of grown-up. Though the children depends upon the parents’ decision for their affairs, the grown-up make the decision themselves to solve their problems. But taking the paternalistic role in our free society, the government becomes bigger and extends its power. Here, there is a question for us. What would we do when the government extends its authority into the private sphere or cannot secure our life, liberty and property?

5.Libertarian Revolution

We have expressed that minimal state is the best. Its functions are only to protect the life, liberty and property of every individual. But the government which has the duty to protect our rights, may become the enemy to our rights because it is only the government which has possessed the military unit, and police force. The nature of those forces is two-sided. The good face of the forces is that they could protect our rights. That they could destroy our rights is the bad face of the forces.

Theoretically, the government is the servant of the people. But the servant may be the killer of the masters. What would we do in such a situation? What are the measures to protect our rights? We think we could use two ways to restore our rights, taming the wild servant called the bad government.

The first is a peaceful one called Civil Disobedience. When the government passes a law or set a policy which is contrary to our rights, we could express our disapproval by violating that law or acting against that policy.(17) In democratic states, it would be effective measure to pressure the legislatures in order to change or abolish the law or policy. In autocratic states, we don’t think it would be effective.

There is a situation the government is too oppressive and the whole system is too repressive. In that kind of situation, civil disobedience is not the enough measure. We might have to use more violent measure. That way is revolution. That mean includes violence, aiming at the overthrow of the existing system and replacing with the new socio-political system which can secure our rights.

We could see in the American Declaration of Independence that the right to revolution is one of our rights. In that Declaration, Lockian-inspired Thomas Jefferson wrote that the government is instituted to protect the rights, its power comes from the consent of the people, and the people have the right to alter or to abolish the government when it destroys the rights of people.(18) John Locke as well claimed that we could try to change the bad government by any means.

The government is composed of small numbers of people compared to the whole population. That small numbers include the ministers, the bureaucrats, the soldiers and polices. They could perform their duties thanks to the support of the people. That support includes paying the taxes to the government. In the bad governance, we could oppose to it by avoiding the taxes. That is one of the measures to abolish or alter the government.(19) But, when we build new government after overthrowing the old one, the point we should not forget is that government is the means, and liberty is the end of us.

6.Conclusion

According to the above points, we believe that the socio-political and economic systems which could secure the individual freedom, is consistent with human nature. Only under the system which has a room for individual freedom, humanity could progress and be happy. Individual freedom is the only source of human progress and happiness. Every doctrine which undermines it, would fade away sooner or later. In brief, Individual freedom is the end of human history.

References

1. Thomas Paine by Mark Philp

2. A Companion to Contemporary Political Philosophy edited by Robert E. Goodin and Philip Pettit

3. For A New Liberty, The Libertarian Manifesto by Murray N. Rothbard

4. Carl Rogers and Humanistic Education by C. H. Patterson

5. A History of Western Philosophy by Bertrand Russell(ေဒၚခင္မာလာ ဘာသာျပန္)

6. A History of Western Political Thought by J.S.McClelland

7. A New Class by Milovan Dijalas

8. The Democracy Sourcebook edited by Robert Dahl, Ian Shapiro, and Jose Antonio Cheibub

9. What it means to be a Libertarian by Charles Murray

10. Political Science by Raymond Garfield Gettell

11. Max Weber, Oxford Dictionary of Politics

12. Fundamentals of Political Economy by P. Nikitin

13. Wild Swans by Jung Chang (ေက်ာ္ေအာင္ ဘာသာျပန္)

14. Communism, A Very Short Induction by Leslie Holmes

15. 1974 Burma Constitution

16. Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith (ဦးၾကည္ျမင့္ ဘာသာျပန္)

17. On the Duty of Civil Disobedience by H. D. Thoreau

18. American Declares Independence by Alan Dershowitz

19. Four Strategies for Libertarian Change by Murray N. Rothbard