The Public Book Club (Almenna bokafelagid) on 1 December 2018 published a collection of six Cold War speeches by six prominent anti-communist poets and writers, In Defence of Western Civilisation, with a 40 pp. foreword and 70 pp. endnotes by Professor Hannes H. Gissurarson. In his discussion of the cultural front in the Cold War, Gissurarson applied the concept of totalitarianism to describe and explain the position of the six authors. In a speech reprinted in the book, poet Tomas Gudmundsson had argued that a new kind of slavery had been introduced in modern times, spiritual slavery, where one was not only to obey Big Brother, but also to love him.

Hayek gives a talk on “The Muddle of the Middle” in Iceland 5 April 1980.

At a seminar organised by RNH and the Institute of Public Administration and Politics at the University of Iceland 17 May 2019, Stefan Snaevarr, Philosophy Professor at Lillehammer University in Norway, criticised the concept of totalitarianism. It was wrong to regard national socialism as a branch of socialism proper, he argued: the Nazis had privatised many companies. Socialism was not “the road to serfdom”, as Friedrich von Hayek had asserted in a famous book. Economic planning was compatible with democracy. Gissurarson replied that a distinction had to be made between voluntary and coercive socialism. He had nothing against people forming socialist enterprises like workers’ cooperatives or farmers’ collectives: indeed, the free economy was nothing but a framework around and facilitating individual choices.  Coercive socialism however always implied that people were not allowed to choose for themselves: Force was used to drive them in the “right” direction. Of course Swedish ‘nursery school socialism’ was much better than Russian ‘labour camp socialism’, but classical liberals rejected both these kinds of socialism, instead supporting individual freedom and the responsibility going with it.

Professor Olafur Th. Hardarson chaired the seminar. RNH participation in it formed a part of the joint project with ACRE on ‘Europe of the Victims’. Iceland’s journal of record, the daily Morgunbladid, published an account of the debate on 6 June:

In the foreword to the book In Defence of Western Culture: Speeches by Six Authors in 1950–1958, Professor Hannes H. Gissurarson argues that Hitler’s National Socialism and Stalin’s Communism were two variants of Twentieth Century Totalitarianism: Modern totalitarians had tried to subdue the soul no less than the body. In this Gissurarson echoes the six Icelandic intellectuals whose speeches from the Cold War are reprinted in the book, Tomas Gudmundsson, Gunnar Gunnarsson, Kristmann Gudmundsson, Gudmundur G. Hagalin, Sigurdur Einarsson and David Stefansson. On the other hand, Professor Stefan Snaevarr doubts that the concept of totalitarianism is useful and does not think that National Socialism and Communism have much in common. Gissurarson and Snaevarr exchange views about the issue at a seminar organised by RNH and the Institute of Public Administration Studies and Politics at the University of Iceland, in Room 101 in Oddi at the University of Iceland, 16–17:30 Friday 17 May 2019. Professor Olafur Th. Hardarson will chair the meeting.

From the London event.

Economic integration paradoxically facilitates political disintegration, RNH Academic Director Professor Hannes Gissurarson said in four lectures given at the Free Market Road Show in the spring of 2019. The meetings were held in Thessaloniki 6 May, Athens 7 May, London 9 May and Stockholm 10 May. Other lecturers included Dr. Richard Rahn, former Chief Economist of the US Chamber of Commerce, and Philosopy Professor Andrew Bernstein. The Austrian Economics Center, under the leadership of Barbara Kolm, organised the Road Show.

Gissurarson recalled Adam Smith’s explanation for the wealth of nations: that it was brought about by the division of labour in the free market. This division of labour became the more beneficial the more extended the market were. The reason why small political units could however flourish was that they had access to large international markets and could therefore benefit from the global division of labour. In 1946, when the United Nations were founded, the number of independent states was 76, but now the UN had 193 member states, not counting the Vatican and Taiwan. Gissurarson pointed out that  nations in small states often were homogeneous so that the cost per capita of law enforcement was not as high as in large, heterogeneous states. Small states were also usually not as aggressive as large ones so that expenditure on the military tended to be relatively low.

Gissurarson discussed in particular the Nordic countries whose success was not, he said, because of, but despite, social democracy. Its main explanations were the rule of law, free trade and social cohesion which led to solidarity and consensus and reduced the costs of operating a state and a market. There was a strong liberal tradition in the Nordic countries, for example in Sweden, Gissurarson pointed out. Indeed, before Adam Smith the Swedish-Finnish priest Anders Chydenius had demonstrated how private and public interests could coincide under free competition. In the 19th century, again, liberal politicians had significantly increased economic freedom in Sweden, and as a consequence economic growth had been faster there than in any other country in 1870–1936.

Gissurarson said that the European Union was in transformation. While it had originally been a forum for the historical and praiseworthy truce between Germany and France, the question now was whether it would become an open market or a closed state, a federation of states or a federal state. The idea of the nation state was becoming relevant again. National socialism had been a disaster, but perhaps the idea of national liberalism, common in the 19th century, had some merit. But a country had to be a home rather than a fortress or, even worse, a prison.

In Stockholm, Gissurarson used the opportunity to meet with two other members of the Mont Pelerin Society, Dr. Nils Karlson of Ratio Institute and investment manager Peter Stein, to discuss further intellectual cooperation between classical liberals and conservatives in the Nordic countries. This meeting formed a part of the joint project with ACRE on ‘Bluegreen Capitalism for Europe’.

At a Liberty Fund Colloquium in Petrópolis in Brazil, RNH Academic Director Hannes H. Gissurarson said that a free economy was purposeless, but not pointless. The point was not to maximise anything, but to bring about the spontaneous coordination of individuals pursuing different and often conflicting aims. American legal philosopher and judge Richard Posner maintained however that judges should aim at wealth maximisation in their decisions. Gissurarson said that this was sometimes relevant, but not always. He recalled the famous decision by King Salomon when two women put forward claims to the same baby. When Salomon had asked for a sword in order to cut the baby into two, he had not been seeking a mean: he had been testing which of the two women valued the child more. This was an example of wealth maximisation. If it would have been known which of the two women was really the mother, she would of course have been assigned the baby. A judge first had to ascertain existing rights and claims, and by default he could try to maximise wealth, transfer goods to those who valued them the most.

One topic discussed at the Colloquium was accidents and the price of human lives. Gissurarson pointed out the enormous waste caused by airport security where passengers had to wait in line for half an hour or more, eight million people every day on average. If human lives could be priced, then it might pay greatly to reduce such security even if it meant that some lives would be lost in terrorist attacks. In a discussion on redistribution Gissurarson rejected the common idea that a dollar was worth more to a poor person than to a rich one so that total happiness or utility would increase by its transfer from the rich to the poor. Often, Gissurarson maintained, the rich was rich precisely because a dollar was worth more to him than to others. Many wealthy people were entrepreneurs who felt the need for all their dollars in new projects. A lively discussion on many related topics took place at the Colloquium which was directed by Professor Eduardo Mayora from Guatemala on 11–14 April 2019.

Participants in the Colloquium. Photo: Daniela Becker.

In discussions about the Nordic countries, many mention social democracy, as social democrats rules the three Scandinavian countries for decades in the 20th century. However, there is indeed a strong liberal tradition in the Nordic countries, Professor Hannes H. Gissurarson argued in a paper he read 6 April 2019 at the annual conference of APEE, Association of Private Enterprise Education, on Paradise Island in the Bahamas. Gissurarson recalled that Swedish-Finnish priest Anders Chydenius had advanced a theory about the harmony of private interests and the public good before Adam Smith; and that Swedish statesman Johan August Gripenstedt had in mid-19th century contributed greatly to the first Swedish Model of economic freedom and enterprise. This first model led to tremendous progress: In 1870–1936, economic growth in Sweden was the most rapid in the world. The second Swedish Model was pursued by the Social Democrats in 1970–1990, with high taxes and extensive redistribution, but it proved to be unsustainable, and the Swedes are now following the third Swedish Model, reducing taxation and providing more scope for private enterprise, even if they have not abandoned generous welfare provisions.

Prof. J.R. Clark (right) accepting his Distinguished APEE Fellow award from APEE President Prof. Andrew Young

Gissurarson pointed out that Jon Sigurdsson, the leader of Iceland’s struggle for independence, was a classical liberal, as was clear from his many magazine articles. The authors of the two first books on economics in Icelandic, Arnljotur Olafsson and Jon Thorlaksson, also were committed classical liberals. Gissurarson gave an account of the extensive liberal reforms in Iceland in 1991–2004, privatisation, tax cuts, strengthening of pension funds and an opening up of the economy as a result of membership of the EEA, European Economic Area. He argued that the success of these reforms was best demonstrated by the fact that Iceland recovered quickly from the severe blow of the 2008 bank collapse.

Dr. Jerry Jordan was elected President of APEE, replacing Professor Andrew Young. A monetary theorist, Jordan was President of the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland for eleven years. Professor James Ottesen was elected Vice President, Professor Benjamin Powell Treasurer and Professor Edward Stringham Editor of the Journal of Private Enterprise. Professor J. R. Clark was elected Distinguished Fellow of APEE. Gissurarson’s participation in the conference formed a part of the joint project with ACRE on ‘Bluegreen Capitalism for Europe’.

Gissurarson Slides on Paradise Island