Hannes H. Gissurarson, Professor Emeritus of Politics at the University of Iceland, was a guest at Gisli Freyr Valdorsson’s podcast on 2 July 2024, discussing many current issues. He found it strange that the welfare state was growing at the same time as the need for it was diminishing, as people were getting more prosperous, more able to support themselves and pay for what they wanted. He was not worried about an increase in population because each additional individual could produce more than he would consume if he or she was allowed freely to use their skills and abilities to their own advantage. The only effective foreign aid was free trade, Gissurarson submitted, the opportunity of Western companies to invest in the developing world and the access of companies in the developing world to Western markets. Ecofundamentalists, or extreme environmentalists, did not realise that environmental protection required designated protectors, owners of resources with an interest in conserving them and improving upon them. Gissurarson suggested that the Icelandic bank collapse in 2008 had resulted in a massive transfer of power from the elected representatives of the people to bureaucrats and regulators. It was time to transfer this power, not to government, but to the people. He recalled that two political leaders, Bjarni Benediktsson and Sigmundur David Gunnlaugsson, had had astonishing success in their dealings with the foreign creditors of the fallen Icelandic banks, who had had to return a significant part of their gains, to the Icelandic state.

Frá v.: Karítas Kvaran, Rósa Guðbjartsdóttir, Þórdís Edwald, Kjartan Gunnarsson, Jónas Sigurgeirsson, Hannes H. Gissurarson, Baldur Guðlaugsson og Ármann Þorvaldsson.

The Public Book Club, Almenna bokafelagid, AB, held its annual general meeting on 4 May 2024. AB was founded on 17 June 1955 in order to counter the disproportionate influence of the communist-dominated book club Language and Culture, Mal og menning, supported by Soviet money, the notorious ‘Russian Gold’. AB is now a publishing company rather than a book club, however. AB’s Director, Jonas Sigurgeirsson, gave a report about last year for the other shareholders, Kjartan Gunnarsson, Baldur Gudlaugsson, and Armann Thorvaldsson. Also present was the Academic Adviser to AB, Professor Hannes H. Gissurarson.

In 2023, the emphasis was on children’s books and material for tourists. But in past years, AB has published several books about the 2008 bank collapse and its aftermath by Icelandic journalists and historians: The Icesave Deals: The Blunder of the Century? by Sigurdur Mar Jonsson; The Andersen Documents by Eggert Skulason; The Pots-and-Pans Revolution: Spontaneous or Planned? by Stefan Gunnar Sveinsson; The Currency Supervision Authority: Power without Supervision? by Bjorn Jon Bragason; The Abolition of the Economic Controls: The Deals of the Century? by Sigurdur Mar Jonsson. AB has also published Ayn Rand’s three main novels in Icelandic translations, We the Living, The Fountainhead, and Atlas Shrugged. Moreover, AB distributes the books in English by Professor Emeritus Hannes H. Gissurarson, published by the Brussels think tank New Direction, including Twenty-Four Conservative-Liberal Thinkers in two volumes.

Professor Emeritus David D. Friedman, who used to teach economics at American universities while holding a Ph. D. in physics, gave a talk at a meeting of RSE, the Icelandic Research Centre of Social and Economic Affairs, on Wednesday 1 May 2024. Halldor B. Thorgeirsson, RSE Chairman of the Board, delivered some opening remarks, whereas Hannes H. Gissurarson, Professor Emeritus at the University of Iceland, chaired the meeting. Gissurarson recalled that 45 years ago Friedman had been the first visiting lecturer of the Icelandic Libertarian Association which had been active in 1979-1989. Some of its old members were even attending the present meeting. What Friedman then talked about was law and legislation in the old Icelandic Commonwealth (930–1262).

In his talk, Friedman first discussed the development of ideas in the 45 years which have passed since his first visit to Iceland. The most important change was that nobody was any more in support of central economic planning, as such support had indeed mostly rested on ignorance about the inevitable dispersal of knowledge in the economic order which made central planning well nigh possible. Now ecofundamentalism had replaced traditional socialism, even becoming a new religion. Subsequently, Friedman turned to global warming. He accepted that there had been some global warming in the last decades and also that it might partly be caused by the emission of greenhouse gases, in particular carbon dioxide. It was uncertain however, Friedman said, that the negative consequences of this warming outweighed the positive ones. The negative consequences were most importantly an increasing sea level and a disruption of individual plans based on the present climate. Moreover, animals and plants that had adapted to the present climate might encounter some difficulties. The positive consequences were however a great increase in arable land. There was also more warming in cold regions than in warm ones and more warming in winter than in summer.

Friedman answered many questions. He said he favoured American non-interventionism in foreign affairs but not immediately because European countries needed time to strengthen their defences because they could not expect American taxpayers to pay for them. Europe should be able to confront Russia on her own. Friedman recalled that in his Machinery of Freedom from 1971 he had supported free immigration, but on the condition that immigrants would not be eligible for welfare benefits for ten years. This was still a relevant idea. Immigrants willing to work were indeed desirable, but not immigrants just seeking benefits. Friedman said that he did not know much about modern Iceland, but that he had great interest in the Icelandic Commonwealth and that he had read a lot of the sagas.

Hannes H. Gissurarson presented Friedman’s ideas in an article in Morgunbladid on 30 April 2024.

Friedman discussed his ideas in the podcasts of popular hosts Snorri Másson and Gisli Freyr Valdorsson. He was also interviewed by reporter Baldur Arnarson in Morgunbladid.

On Friedman’s home page there is a lot of material about his many interests.

Hannes H. Gissurarson, Professor Emeritus of Politics at the University of Iceland, gave a talk about practical liberal solutions of economic problems at a conference in Blagoevgrad in Bulgaria on 26 April 2024, held by the American University there and the Austrian Economics Center in Vienna. Gissurarson said that classical liberalism was not about idle dreams or castles in the air, and that the desirable consequences of limited government and private property were obvious and material, as the examples of the United States in the latter half of the nineteenth century, Hong Kong in mid-twentieth century and Switzerland all showed.

It has often been pointed out that some scarce goods cannot be priced correctly in market transactions, and then it has been asserted that government therefore has to provide them. These are the so-called ‘public goods’. A textbook example is the service provided by lighthouses for ships. But when the matter is investigated, it emerges that the service provided by lighthouses has indeed been priced, as a part of the service that lighthouses and ports jointly provide. The price for the service of the lighthouses is included in the port charges. Gissurarson also pointed out that government need not itself produce various goods, even if it could finance their production. One example was primary education. Government could send vouchers to parents and children which could be used to pay for education (with the possibility of adding something as well out of private pockets to the schools). Thus schools could be private while the consumers of their services could choose between them.

Gissurarson recalled that in Iceland government had a monopoly on broadcasting until 1986. It was abolished, after he and his friends operated a radio station in protest for eight days in October 1984, until the authorities were able to locate the transmitter upon which the police closed the radio station. This lead to Gissurarson’s first conviction, as he put it (his two other convictions being in a defamation suit in England, later dismissed on appeal, and in a case about the use of texts by a deceased Icelandic writer).

Gissurarson observed that technical innovations tended to facilitate pricing goods which had hitherto been regarded as public goods. One example was electronic reading machines at the beginning of roads, bridges and tunnels which enabled the owners of these facilities easily to charge passing car drivers for their use, deducting the fee in question from their credit cards.

Hannes H. Gissurarson, Professor Emeritus of Politics at the University of Iceland, gave a talk at a conference held by the Faculty of Law and Economics at the University of Skopje in North Macedonia on 25 April 2024 about the free economy after the recent polycrisis. This is a term used for several crises that happen simultaneously and reinforce one another, creating a conundrum.

On the 2020–2022 Pandemic, Gissurarson said that it was something that had already happened and could not be changed. But it was crucial to know its origin in order to reduce the likelihood of it happening again. The Chinese authorities refused to provide any information on this, and this by itself suggested that the virus causing the Pandemic had leaked out of a laboratory in Wuhan.

On the War in Ukraine, Gissurarson said that Russian leader Vladimir Putin had twice received the wrong signals from the West. He had attacked George with impunity in 2008 and Ukraine, also with impunity, in 2014. Therefore he had thought he could attack Ukraine again with impunity in 2022.

On the 2007–2009 credit crunch, Gissurarson said that other nations could perhaps learn an lesson from the Icelanders who had limited the financial obligations of government, and instead made deposits priority claims in the estates of failed banks, thus averting bank runs and panic. Banks should operate under the same principle as other businesses that they would not always be rescued in hard times.

On the attack on freedom of thought and expression at universities and in the social media, Gissurarson said that probably this was a convulsion that would go away, just like the left-wing convulsion around 1968 had left nothing behind except some long-haired drug addicts.

Hannes H. Gissurarson, Professor Emeritus of Politics at the University of Iceland, gave a talk on the ethics of the free market at the School of Business Administration and Economics in Zagreb, Croatia, on 24 April 2024. He said that it was relatively easy to make the case for free trade. Ef you own an apple and need an orange, while another person oens an orange and needs an apple, then you and him exchange the apple and orange to your mutual benefit. It was seemingly more difficult to make the case for private propery in apples and oranges. John Locke had argued that private property rights to resources could be developed with the proviso that others would not become worse off than the new owner. David Hume had on the other hand argued that it was a sufficient justification of private property rights that others could not present any legimitate claims to them.

Whatever the origin of private property rights, the general arguments for them were twofold, according to Gissurarson. First, they tended to produce peace because good fences made good neighbours. By dividing up natural resources people reduced the likelihood of conflicts. In the second place, private property rights encouraged wealth creation because people spent more effort on what belonged to them than on what belonged to others. Farmers cultivated their own plots with more care than any plots held in common. The business of everybody became the business of nobody.

Gissurarson added that the intellectual support for the free market order had usually been based either on natural rights or on utility. But in his opinion English philosopher Michael Oakeshott had perhaps presented the most cogent argument for this order. This was, briefly, that modern Western man had gradually acquired the will and ability to make choices. He (or she) had stepped out of the tribe and become an individual. Romeo and Juliet had not found it sufficient to remain merely a Montague or a Capulet. The freedom to choose had become the second nature of modern man, and those Westerners who rejected this freedom, for example socialists, were simply refusing to recognise who they themselves were; they were mistaken about their own identity.