Free Education

There has always been polemic concerning public higher education. Most people would agree that primary and secondary schools ought to be “free” because no one chooses his birthplace, and everyone should have a chance to succeed. But the same argument does not necessarily apply to college. In college, applicants are already “grown-up” and thus should be able to fend for themselves. But is college really that necessary? In the spirit of full-disclosure, I may be hypocritical, for I attend a public university (Germany) which is paid with tax-payers money.

Only a few things in life are free. What we understand as “Free” education is actually just paid by somebody else. In reality public universities are paid for by taxes. Instead of thinking about money, let’s think about time. In order to earn money, people have to work, thus sacrificing their precious time. If we levy a tax of 16.6% on workers in order to pay for the “free” education, you are forcing everyone to work for 2 months every year not for themselves, but for others who they probably don’t even know, or worse, for bureaucrats. Even if it sounds great in theory, and many would think it is a desirable goal, there are some who don’t. The problem is, when universities are free-of-charge, you are forcing everyone to pay for them, even the ones who don’t agree with it.

However, the point of this post is not to handle the moral question lying behind the issue. That would take a post all by itself. What I hope we can agree in, is that it is a controversial issue, which is to say, cannot be answered so easily. But let’s ask ourselves, what are the alternatives? Does no public universities mean ignorant masses, unaffordable education, a life of despair? In the past it might have meant so, even though higher education was not as necessary as it is today.

We live in a new era. The Internet era. We can access all the world’s information with a few clicks. We have the biggest library for free (Google), the most extensive and up-to-date encyclopedia (Wikipedia), exclusive access to the minds of the Crème-de-la-Crème (Twitter), the most extensive video collection (Youtube), unlimited sharing power and the ability to create communities (Facebook) and publish knowledge (Wordpress, Blogger, Tumblr). Previously I admitted that I went to a public university in Germany. But I could argue that I actually attend the University of the Internet. Anything I don’t understand immediately (Almost everything) I Google, Youtube, or Wikipedia it. In fact, there are some lectures I don’t even attend and learn it all by myself at the library.

If we have the time and care to, we could study any subject all by ourselves.  Recently I’ve read a tempting argument ( http://goo.gl/fxKbE )that instead of going to college, we should educate ourselves through the internet and then write about it (blogs) and show the world (Youtube videos) what we’ve learned as certificate (Savoir-faire) that we have not lost our time. Our blogs and video pages could be shown to potential employers who would attest that we are hard-working. This method would not only be beneficial for the ones who do it, but for the whole world, who could now access this knowledge.

If you are sceptical of this option, and think you have to have a real degree, then meet the “University of the People”, a fee-free initiative  ( http://www.uopeople.org/ ). There you can study for free, wherever you come from. There are also increasingly new free education projects, some by the most prestigious institutions (Harvard, MIT) ( http://goo.gl/EZo3b , http://goo.gl/iO4fx ).

If the number of self-educated people grew, then so would the supply of materials and options. People could organize themselves and create self-learning communities. They could meet to watch online lectures together and correct each other’s work. Some older students could charge a low price to give private lectures and so on. It could even be argued that this personalized method of learning could potentially be even better that on-campus education. 

I’m not saying that going to college is not worth it, what i’m trying to argue is that it is not the only option to receive higher education knowledge. It would be a mistake to think that if there were no public universities, people would remain uneducated. In this new era, anyone that wants, could do it.  

P.S: Perhaps this does not easily apply to subjects such as Medicine.




@Corderrosas

Proteccionismo, mas que un error, un crimen.

El Proteccionismo: Mas que un error, un crimen Una medida muy popular de los gobiernos históricamente ha sido el proteccionismo. Su punto máximo fue entre el siglo XVI y XVIII con el mercantilismo. Las medidas proteccionistas buscan ayudar a la industria nacional, sea subvencionándola o poniendo barreras a las compañias extranjeras. La argumentación común es la siguiente: Si no ayudamos a la industria nacional, las compañias extranjeras las forzarán fuera del mercado, dejando a miles (o millones) de personas desempleadas. Otro argumento puede ser que necesitamos ser independientes y es de importancia vital no necesitar cosas depender de otros paises. Si bien la historia demostró que estas políticas no tienen sentido económico, muchos gobiernos insisten en aplicarlas.


 En su magnum opus, La Riqueza de las Naciones, Adam Smith notó que las sociedades se vuelven mucho más ricas cuando los integrantes de la misma se dedican a lo que mejor saben hacer. Para cubrir sus otras necesidades pueden comercializar en el mercado. De esta manera, si yo soy mejor escribiendo de lo que soy cultivando, me dedico a escribir artículos y compro en el mercado la comida que necesito.

En un sistema de libre mercado, los precios juegan un papel sumamente importante. Éstos son los portadores de información sobre qué debería ser producido y dónde se necesita. También indican si el trabajo que se está haciendo es correcto, o si uno se debería estar dedicando a otra cosa. Cuando una persona o compañía está teniendo ganancias, significa que la gente valora lo que produce y está incluso dispuesta a dar de su dinero para acceder a dicho producto o servicio. Cuando, por el contrario, una empresa tiene pérdidas, significa que lo que está produciendo no es tan valioso para la sociedad (Puesto que prefieren usar su dinero para otras cosas). Esto implica que los recursos que estan siendo usados para ese producto o servicio que tiene pérdida podrían ser usados para otras cosas mucho mas valiosas para la comunidad. De esta manera se coordinan todos los actores de la sociedad para producir lo mas valioso para la misma.

Cuando se usan políticas proteccionistas, es porque la empresa no puede sobrevivir por sí misma el mercado. A pesar de que la gente tiene la opcion de comprar el producto nacional, decide no hacerlo. Esto se puede deber a que es muy caro, o la calidad no es tan buena, o cualquier infinidad de razones. La gente valora más las otras cosas que puede adquirir con ese dinero que el producto nacional, lo cual nos indica que no lo valoran tanto. Sin embargo, todo cambia cuando se usan politicas proteccionistas. Si se subvenciona a la empresa nacional, esta puede vender el producto mas barato que la competencia (Sin embargo, ahora este dinero no podrá ser usado para construir o reparar carreteras, hospitales o colegios), si impones barreras a las compañias extranjeras, como impuestos, estas ya no podrán vender al mismo precio que antes. Sea como sea, aumenta la venta del producto nacional. ¿Pero a qué costo?.

Esto no tiene sentido económico para la sociedad. Las empresas nacionales ganan, pues se pueden mantener artificialmente en el mercado. La sociedad, sin embargo, pierde. Ahora las personas se ven forzadas a comprar el mismo producto a un mayor precio, o al mismo precio comprar un producto de menor calidad, o desperdiciando dinero público que pudo haber sido usado para otras cosas. Estas empresas son un peso muerto para la sociedad. El costo de ayudar a unos pocos (los pertenecientes a la empresa) lo tiene que llevar todo el pais, que pierde en parte su libertad de decidir y con el mismo dinero que antes recibe peores productos o servicios. Este argumento ya es bastante conocido dentro del mundo económico. Pero a mi parecer va más alla que ésto. Las politicas proteccionistas son un crimen en contra de la sociedad donde se apliquen. El ser humano tiene una gran gama de talentos y una capacidad creativa impresionante. Cuando proteges a una empresa, porque no puede competir contra otras que claramente abastecen a la sociedad mejor que ella misma, se están desperdiciando recursos. No solo materia prima y capital, sino personas. Personas que podrían estar sirviendo a la sociedad mucho mejor en otra empresa o industria, se mantienen estancado en una empresa zombie, que vive solo acaparando recursos, en lugar de producirle valor a la sociedad. Esto es un desperdicio de habilidad, talento y creatividad, que de estar en otro lugar podrían ser un bien invalorable para la sociedad.

P.S: Un argumento a favor de las politicas proteccionistas es el de las industrias nacientes. Este se basa en que a veces algunas empresas necesitan de proteccion para poder crecer, hasta estar a la altura de los estándares del mercado. Si bien es cierto que una empresa naciente enfrenta muchas mas dificultades que una establecida, no es necesario el proteccionismo para asegurar que ésta crezca. Una parte peligrosa de cualquier medida (temporal) proteccionista, es que cuesta mucho retirar las barreras una vez impuestas. Cuando existe el incentivo de una ganancia, los posibles beneficiarios hacen todo lo que se encuentre a su alcance para asegurar que su dinero esté en un buen uso. En el caso de empresas nacientes, los actores privados correrían la empresa a perdida hasta que esta empiece a producir ganancias. Previendo que las ganancias futuras son mayores que los costos iniciales, este tipo de empresa puede crecer. El gobierno no dispone de conocimiento superior al de los privados para saber que empresas o industrias tienen futuro o cuales no.


 @CorderRosas

Luchando contra la pobreza

Sin importar donde se encuentre uno, creo que es seguro decir que la pobreza es considerado uno de los peores males que existe a nivel global. Puede llevar a que personas mueran de hambre, vivan en condiciones que hoy en día consideremos infra-humanas y tengan que recurrir a robar, matar o cualquier actividad criminal para sobrevivir. Produce escalofríos ver fotos de aldeas en África en estado de miseria, o sin ir muy lejos, la situación en la que viven una cantidad impresionante de venezolanos.

Muchas personas prefieren cerrar sus ojos ante esta situación e ignorar que tal problema existe. Otras personas, llenas de visión y buenas intenciones, prefieren “luchar” contra la pobreza y buscar mejorar la situación en la que viven sus vecinos. Algunos hacen trabajo social, otros donan a caridad, otros deciden entrar en política y la gran mayoría apoya a los que deciden entrar en política, confiando que harán un buen trabajo. Si bien cuidar de nuestros vecinos y ser caritativo es una parte fundamental del espíritu humano, hemos de tener mucho cuidado que nuestras acciones tengan los efectos deseados. Muchas veces la cura puede ser peor que la enfermedad.

No es un misterio que muchos políticos en la historia del mundo democrático hayan sido electos por sus campañas de igualdad social, donde prometen darle a los mas necesitados su “parte justa” de la riqueza que existe en un país. El señor Hugo Chávez ha sido electo, entre otras cosas, por esto. Promete quitarle a los “burgueses” y “oligarcas” su riqueza para darle a los mas necesitados. Después de todo, ¿Por qué habría una minoría de la población disfrutar de riquezas inimaginables para el resto de la población, que no sabe cómo sobrevivir hasta el día siguiente?. Si no nos detuviésemos a pensar claramente, podríamos inferir que la pobreza es solo un problema de distribución de la riqueza.

Sin embargo, es necesario preguntarnos, ¿Qué es la pobreza?. Señores, la pobreza no es nada más que la ausencia de riqueza, al igual que la oscuridad es la ausencia de luz. La pobreza no es nada nuevo, durante el curso de la humanidad, ésta ha vivido la mayoría del tiempo en condiciones que hoy en día consideraríamos humillantes. Incluso los más ricos de hace varios siglos los podríamos considerar pobres si los medimos con los estándares de nuestros días. La esperanza de vida era bajísima, mientras la tasa de mortalidad infantil era altísima, incluso para los nobles y las clases sociales altas. En algún punto de la historia, todo cambió. Cuando se le permitió a los hombres tratar entre ellos libremente, empezamos a tener avances tecnológicos que levantaron a la humanidad del estado de miseria en el que se encontraba.

Si queremos erradicar la pobreza, lo que necesitamos es permitir que la riqueza pueda ser creada. Que el tiempo y recursos de la gente sean usados donde más se necesitan. Tal sistema existe. Parafraseando a Milton Friedam, nunca, en la historia de la humanidad ha existido una maquinaria mas eficiente para levantar a millones de personas de la pobreza, que el libre mercado. Basta con una rápida mirada para darse cuenta que los países con más libertad económica disfrutan al mismo tiempo de la mejor calidad de vida. La pobreza es la situación por defecto en la que un país se encuentra si no se le permite a sus ciudadanos crear riqueza.

Pensar que la solución a la pobreza es simplemente distribuirla, sería ignorar el tiempo por completo. La riqueza no es una cantidad fija, sino al contrario, es potencialmente ilimitada. Cuando usamos políticas de redistribución de la riqueza, estamos impidiendo que esta crezca, logrando “Pan para hoy y hambre para mañana”. Es preferible concentrarse en la creación de riqueza que en la redistribución de la misma. Para lograr esto, es necesario permitir que la gente comercie libremente (un intercambio solo puede tomar lugar si todos los involucrados lo consideran beneficioso), que se proteja la propiedad privada y un Estado de Derecho, con igualdad de las personas ante la ley. Si dejamos a los ciudadanos libres para tratar entre ellos, sin tener a un gobierno controlándolo todo, la sociedad prosperará por sí misma. No necesitamos de un estado paternalista con el centro de la moralidad ubicado en Miraflores que dicte cuanto y a qué precio se debe producir y vender.

Cuando permitimos que el gobierno distribuya arbitrariamente la riqueza, se la estamos quitando a alguien para dársela a otra persona. A la persona a la que se le quita, no podrá hacer uso de ese dinero. Esto no sólo ocasiona que ya no pueda consumir ni contratar a otras personas con ese dinero, sino que a su vez se disminuye el incentivo para crear más riqueza. Si mientras más gana una persona, más se le quita ¿Para qué trabajar más?. Con políticas de distribución lo que logramos es dejar de crear riqueza, dejándonos así estancados en la pobreza contra la cual luchamos.

Cuando hagan trabajo social o donen para caridad, pueden contar con un aplauso de mi parte. Pero cuando apoyen medidas políticas les pido que analicen bien todos sus efectos, no solo a corto plazo y para un grupo de personas, sino a largo plazo y para todos los grupos de personas.

@Corderrosas

El factor frio

Viviendo en Alemania, y habiendo viajado a lugares mas fríos como Ucrania, me he dado cuenta de la influencia que tiene el frío en muchas cuestiones de la vida cotidiana.
No puedo decir con certeza que ésto sea así, es simplemente una teoría.

Menos vocales: En los idiomas nórdicos tienen muchas menos vocales que los derivados del latín o los idiomas originarios de países más cálidos. A mi parecer, ésto se debe a que para pronunciar las vocales hace falta tener la boca mas abierta que para pronunciar consonantes. Cuando abres la boca, entra el frío. A mayor frío menos quieres abrir la boca.

Puntualidad: Los paises donde la puntualidad es más exacta son los nórdicos. Esto siempre me impresionó. Pero cuando te toca esperar por alguien a -20 grados, cada minuto que pasa se te ocurren tres maneras diferentes de matar a la persona que te hace esperar.

Desarrollo: Cuando tienes estaciones marcadas, especificamente el invierno, toca prepararse durante el resto de las estaciones. La preparación exige que tengas que pensar a largo plazo y no solamente en el día a día.

Why I don't believe in Macroeconomics

Why I don’t believe in Macroeconomics


Macroeconomics is a branch of Economics that deals with the aggregates of all agents in a country. The Idol of macroeconomics is John Maynard Keynes. Actual champion of Keynesianism is Nobel-Prize laureate Paul Krugman.

The foundations of Macroeconomics is this simple formula:
Y= C(Y-T) + I(r) + G → Y = C + I + G

Y = aggregated Income (well-being)
C = Consume.
C(Y-T) = What people consume after their income (Y) is taxed (T)
I = Investments
I ( r) = Investments dependent on interest rates
G = Government spending.

Of course, this formula gets more complicated when for example you use the Mundell-Fleming-Model which also deals with exchange rates, Imports and Exports. But for simplicity matters, we’ll just use the basic one. The flaws of the theory which I point extend to the more complex versions of the same.

Why Don’t I agree with macroeconomics, and (most) policies which are made based upon it?

1. I regard this formula as kind of a thermometer, which is used to analyse the economic health of a nation. The curious thing about this thermometer is that it is triggered by more than a variable. In metaphor: The country is the patient. The thermometer registers the temperature. The factors that influence the thermometer are the patients body temperature and the room temperature. The problem when you use policies aimed at increasing the aggregate income is that you may change other factors just so that the thermometer tells there has been improvement. This means that you may lower the room temperature and the thermometer will say that the patient has improved. In reality he is just as sick as he was before, the only difference is what the thermometer is telling.

Quoting Keynes vs Hayek (Round 2) video: “Real growth means production of what people demand, that’s entrepreneurship, not your central plan.” http://goo.gl/aNhLe


2. Too much aggregation. It combines things that cannot be properly added together.
It does not take into account the diversity of people. "models in which buyers and sellers are supposed identical is not a simplification of the real world, but a complete renunciation of it." (Austrian Economics, A primer)

3. It supposes that economics should behave in the same way as natural sciences (Chemistry, Physics). Whereas economics is much more complex because it deals with unpredictable individuals who have a mind of their own and react differently in different situations. All aspects of economics (currency, trade, etc) arose because of human action, not by human design (Hayek). The economy is not a machine which by pressing some buttons behaves the way you want it to. The economy is organic, it’s molecules are all individuals. In economics you can not make predictions the same way you would in natural science. I think it was Ludwig von Mises the one who said "If you throw a rock in a river, it will sink. If you throw a human into a river, he must decide if to swim or sink."

4. The Problem of Knowledge (The Use of Knowledge in Society, Hayek) http://goo.gl/McnAM
Because knowledge is so dispersed, it would be very hard if not impossible for any individual or group of individuals to gather this knowledge. This hinders the ability for governments and/or central banks to make decisions that deliver the intended consequences.

5. Unintended consequences. Policies based on the macroeconomic foundations may have unintended consequences that may have devastating effects.

Examples:


Fiscal policy (Change on Taxes or Government expenditure):

We are told that when government increases expenditure the total income arises ( G↑→I↓→ →Y↑ (G↑>I↓)

BUT: first of all, let us remember that government doesn’t actually earn any money. The money that government uses must come from taxes or investors that buy public debt. Any $/€/bs that government spends is a $ that is not used in the private sector. It is money that is not consumed by people (Who could have increased their individual utility by spending it) or is not invested in production of what people demand. This does not increase the income of people. This may be best understood with Bastiat’s Broken Window Fallacy (What Is Seen and not Seen) http://goo.gl/RRy8 Mainstream economists recognize that there is some crowding-out, however, they claim that this is less than the effect of the “multiplier”. Again, let us remember that economic well-being comes when goods are more plentiful, there is more variety, cheaper prices and more accessibility. Even if the aggregate Income actually increased, this would only be artificial, not real growth, because no value was actually created.

BUT: It also depends on what governments spend it in. If they build streets, highways, schools, etc where there was demand for it then it may not be that terrible. This depends if you believe that the public sector does a good job doing this or if you think these would be better taken care of by individuals. I personally believe that individuals could manage it better, but this is only a matter of which could do it best. There is little doubt that by building infrastructure that allows people to exchange easier there will be more trade and therefor more real creation of value. Someone once said that if you build a street between two towns you needed to do little else, because they would find ways to trade between one another in a spontaneous manner. However, most Keynesians don’t really care in what the government spends it in, as long as they spend it. For example Paul Krugman recently claimed that the best that could happen to the U.S was an alien invasion because it would increase government spending. Another famous claim was by Keynes himself who said that in times of crisis government should pay people to dig holes in the day and cover them up by night. If you are not convinced by my argument and even if you were convinced I strongly encourage you to read Bastiat’s essay (It’s not long, I promise.)

Tax Cuts : I have no problem with tax-cuts. As Milton Friedman, I would support them for any reason, at any time, to anyone. They let individuals have more money to spend it or invest it, this in turn, does increase the income of individuals and companies who in turn actually end up paying more taxes (10% of 100 is more than 15% of 50). This also helps lower the level of unemployment because it is now cheaper to pay for labor (Keynesians love to talk about unemployment). But employment is not an end in itself, it is just the means to create value, by letting the private sector do the hiring, people would be employed in the most efficient ways. Job programs are very well described by Milton Friedman in this story:

Milton Friedman was shown the construction on a massive new canal in Asia. When he noted that it was odd that the workers were moving huge amounts of earth and rock with small shovels, rather than earth moving equipment, he was told “You don’t understand; this is a jobs program.” His response: “Oh, I thought you were trying to build a canal. If you’re seeking to create jobs, why didn’t you issue them spoons, rather than shovels?”


Monetary Policy: Change in the money supply or interest rates.

Money supply: When governments print money there is inflation. Inflation hurts the wallets of all individuals without discrimination who can now buy less with the money they have. This does not increase total income for an obvious reason, money is now worth less.

Interest rates: This is one of the most interesting. According to mainstream economists, when you lower interest rates you increase investments, thus raising the aggregate income. But that does not foresee the unintended consequences. Interest rates represent the time preference of people (von Böhm-Bawerk) and their risks preference. When Central Banks artificially lower interest rates (without a change in the time preference of people) they make some investments (for example Housing) seem more attractive than they actually are. This is because there was a distortion of the price mechanism (Hayek). These are malinvestments that lead to a temporary Boom. When banks curb their lendings the Boom turns to Bust and you find yourself in a (avoidable) recession. The important thing is not how much capital we have, but how it is structured. This is explained by Hayek and von Mises in the Austrian Business cycle.


Trade Policy: An easy example of how misleading macroeconomic simplification is, is trade policy. Under the Mundel-Fleming-Modell with fixed exchange rates. They claim that by reducing trade barriers, the “Aggregate Income” falls.
NEX↓ → IS nach links → Y ↓ → r ↓ Impuls → e (↓), Abwertungstendenz → ZB verkleinert Geldmenge um eF zu halten, LM nach links → Y↓ (Sorry that it’s in german, I took it from my Macro class)
But, it goes beyond that. If there are no trade barriers, and a foreign producer can supply a good cheaper or better, that may hurt the local producers, true, but it helps everyone else (including themselves as consumers) The people can now buy goods cheaper than before. This allows them to use the extra money they have now available to consume in another good or invest it. Anyway, even in these model either C or I would go up, INCREASING the “Aggregate Income”. Another argument against trade barriers is Bastiat’s “Candlemakers petition”.


@CorderRosas

The Libertarian Argument

I consider myself a libertarian. However, talking to many people I know, I have realized that only a few are aware of Classical Liberalism (Libertarianism) and even less know what it is about. So I'm going to write a few words about what Classical Liberalism is. In no way should Libertarians be considered the same as Liberals (Democrats) or Conservatives (Republicans).

Libertarianism is the ideology that man's life belongs to himself. We take the assumption that he can handle responsibility and think for himself. He is neither slave nor master to other men. Liberals usually support social freedom, while completely ignoring economic freedom. Conservatives on the other hand support laissez-faire capitalism (free trade) while being against social freedom. Libertarians believe in overall Freedom (Both Social and Economic)

It supports social freedom. That means man can do with his body as he sees fit, he has the right to befriend, marry and handle with whoever he chooses. He also has the right to hold the ideas that he so wishes along with the right to express them. It supports economic freedom, that means he may choose to handle and trade with anyone, and as long as all the concerned parties agree, provided they don't harm anyone, they don't have to answer to no one. Property rights are well established, and private property ought to be hold sacred under an impartial rule of law.


Man has the right to these freedoms, but he may not violate the freedom of other individuals.

Most libertarians hold it to be true that government is better left small in comparison to the economy (While some say there ought to be no government at all). "But why?" you may ask, well... big government means less freedom, for governments have the right to impose their decisions on anyone, unlike individuals who have to negotiate until both parties find it profiting, resulting in win-win situations. They may also prohibit things, that means that even though someone is willing to offer something (therefore believing that trading it will increase his overall happiness) and someone is willing to take it (also increasing his happiness) they may not do so.
Prohibition happens with marriage, schooling, products and services.
[This does not apply if one party is cheating (for example lying) saying “The car works perfectly” while it is actually broken, then it is considered a crime and the cheated party deserve a restitution, this is all possible under an impartial rule of law]

From my point of view, there are two sides of the Libertarian Argument.
The first part is philosophical, moral. These are premises on which you rest your ideas, the foundations if you will. It is that no one has a claim on anyone else, e.g your life belongs to you and no one else. All actions ought to be voluntary, and you may do with your life as you see fit (provided you don’t harm anyone else). These premises lead to believe in laissez-faire capitalism, and overall freedom between consensual adults, where the government doesn’t meddle in your affairs, unless a crime is committed, or to secure your freedom (police).

However, not many wish to mix philosophy with politics or economics (Although I think you should not separate them), that’s why most libertarian arguments are discussed outside the realm of premises (metaphorically it would be as if playing in the other player’s court), and what is argued is not the morality of the free trade system, but rather the efficiency of it. How it has lifted millions from poverty, how it has brought advantages no one could have even imagined of. And also how no other system has been successful in comparison to capitalism.
There’s a lot of evidence that support this. Countries with more freedom are more developed. Even if you didn’t like the morality of these ideas, you would have to agree there is at least no other system that has proven to be more effective or humane.

Among libertarians there are also a lot of tendencies that differ on how small governments ought to be, or even if they should exist at all.

Some believe they should do some things that individuals wouldn’t do themselves, such as building roads and bridges (Adam Smith), schools, water, electricity, and so on. This of course, without much interference in the economy, besides small taxes. This means, no tariffs, no price regulation, freedom to hire and fire, and so on.

Some believe in what is called Minarchism that is that government should provide only the police force, courts to settle affairs, and an army to protect the country from outside enemies.

Some believe in Anarcho-Capitalism which is, no government at all. With private police and courtrooms. Most libertarians find themselves in the first group.

The biggest gateway to classical liberalism (Libertarianism) is the Best-Selling author Ayn Rand , although she didn’t consider herself a libertarian (she was an Objectivist), she has had a great influence among libertarians.

If you care to know more about Classical Liberalism, here are some authors (there are a lot missing, but I am no expert after all)

Ayn Rand (Novels: Atlas Shrugged, The Fountainhead, We the living, Anthem)
Friedrich Hayek (Nobel laureate, The Road to Serfdom, The Use of Knowledge in Society, Fatal Conceit)
Ludwig von Mises (Human action)
Menger (Founder of the austrian school of economics)
Federic Bastiat (What is Seen and what is Unseen in Political Economy, The Law)
Rothbard (Anatomy of the State, For a New Liberty)
John Stuart Mill (On Liberty)
Adam Smith (Wealth of Nations, Theory of Moral Sentiments)
Milton Friedman (Nobel Laureate, Free to choose, Capitalism and Freedom)
Ron Paul (American politician)
Tom G. Palmer (Morality of Capitalism)
Robert Nozick (Anarchy, State and Utopia)
Randy Barnett (Structure of Liberty)

And there are a lot of organizations who spread the word of liberty, such as:

www.learnliberty.org (Great, short videos)
www.mises.org
www.cato.org
www.capitalisminstitute.org
www.econlib.org/
Economic Freedom (On facebook)
www.studentsforliberty.org
Institute for Humane Studies (On facebook)
www.libertyguide.com

Taxation

Governments need taxes to keep working. It is amoral, it is wrong, but it is a small evil we have to live with.

How much they tax is a question that should be discussed.

I think they should only tax the better-off with no more than 20% (usually 10-15%). That money should go to police and courts, that are the only branches of the government who actually do government duty (Which is to protect the individual citizens). Of course, some believe that education and transportation (among others) should also be government tasks. That doesn't mean we have the right to force people to pay for them.

I think that for those kind of services there should be an Opt-Out tax. That means, unless you explicitly say you wish to give no money to pay for, for example children education (Shame on you) you'd have to pay for it. I think most people would gladly pay for it, but it is important that the choice remains theirs. For without choice, we are no better than savages.