Mini Eiffel Tower Cookie Cutter

The speech at the Liberal Prize in 2005

LIBERAL INTERVENTION OF THE YEAR AWARD 2005


My paper focuses on three topics:

1. The report liberalism / socialism


2. The difficulty to implement liberal reforms in Italy


3. The liberalization of the labor market, as one of the things to do in 2006.

1) I see that many Italian politicians in the room-to-liberal positions have attempted to or have entered into agreements with political elections and socialist movements. I do not want to put anyone under any accusatory index of medieval memory. I leave my place to talk a liberal town ... just to refresh our memories:
agree Liberalism and Socialism in the supreme and ultimate purpose, but differ in the fact that to achieve the same purpose, liberalism identifies the most suitable in private ownership of means of production , while socialism identifies the collective property ... To protect the socialist ideal has been made recently, some attempts to improve the common definition of "socialism" .
But it is not to argue the case on the definition! If someone likes to call socialista un ideale che conserva la proprietà privata dei mezzi di produzione, libero di farlo! Un uomo è libero di chiamare cane un gatto e sole la luna, se gli fa piacere. Bisogna però dire che il capovolgimento della terminologia abitualmente usata, che tutti capiscono, non porta alcun vantaggio e crea solamente malintesi. 
Fra liberalismo e socialismo, occorre identificare un vero e proprio spartiacque che faccia chiarezza terminologica ma anche concettuale.
Per il liberale gli uomini sono tutti diversi. Per il socialista gli uomini sono tutti uguali. Il liberalismo cioè difende la libertà, i socialisti si adoperano per l’affermazione dell’uguaglianza. E questi sono due obiettivi contrapposti, quando si fa politica e ci si trova a dover competere in una società aperta, globalizzata, in piena corsa contro il tempo. O la politica si adopera per limare le differenze, ridurre i divari, accorciare le distanze tra i cittadini oppure opera per permettere ai più bravi di correre di più, ai migliori di avere più riscontri delle loro qualità, ai diversi di veder riconosciuta la loro diversità.
Parlare di uguaglianza e di libertà è un controsenso. Una società che fa della libertà la sua filosofia dominante cercherà di offrire ai suoi cittadini pari opportunità di partenza  ma poi premierà il merito, le differenze, le diversità inherent in the human. This is the truly liberal society that we want to celebrate the award to Professor Giavazzi.
2) I want to reiterate a truth very dangerous for all true Italian liberals. I want to reflect with you on the fact that the liberal state, what all we say we want, if you really should be made to break the so-called " eggs in the basket" of all the lobbyists in Italy. Who are they? Groups of professions and jobs that we know, from the porter union member or the Notary Professorone university. The lobby of Italy mentioned by Professor Giavazzi in his book. All holders of positions of income and power (large or small at will) who would lose their privileges as a result of true liberal reforms.

• We want to liberalize the licensing of taxi drivers (or professional)?. And what do you think there would a taxi driver or a notary?


• We want free universities to recruit and reward the best teachers? And what would all those pseudo-academic of the myriad of universities would be left without funds and without students?


• We want to reduce bureaucracy and costs of the Public? It would live as the hordes of civil servants who suddenly found themselves without a job?


• We want to reduce the army of occupation policy (Members and Senators but also the myriad of local representatives)? And what a parliamentary majority could never vote for this law?

I could continue with many more examples and maybe you, you have come to mind more brilliant. I cite but Stuart Mill: " The value of a state is equal to the value of the individuals who compose it . Well, we Italians are a people of Harlequins :

• We are divided. A Frenchman, Francois Pommereul, wrote: "Italy, which even in its decline has continued to dominate Europe with his ideas, it would certainly be unbeatable if it were united under one government." But we are still Guelphs and Ghibellines. We fight about everything.


• We are envious and cowardly. An Austrian Metternich, wrote: "In Italy we hate from province to province, from city to city, from family to family, from individual to individual." We spend all our time better to find the speck in the other.


• We are proud to be smart ... Another Frenchman, Cocteau, said: "The Italian" medium "of stories is not very different from Italian statistics: it's what you do not pay taxes, that does not line up with branches, which always has a friend, a relative willing to do favors illegal votes that only those who are able to guarantee him the small and large privileges on which always is perched. "

And if we are a people of Harlequins, how can we speak of politicians to serve the country, for serious reforms and effective to reverse course, to give Italy a strong economic base, social and political? We are still at the Guelphs and Ghibellines, in all against all, a prime minister who speaks and to opposition criticism that, on one side of the House that proposes and another that destroys, for administrators who want to do something and administered that are put across. With
propose that the liver then the liberal reforms that affect interest and potentates made? Being a liberal in Italy is very difficult, perhaps utopian and unrealistic, certainly is not for everyone. With DNA as ours a truly liberal political risks his life.
many self-styled liberals now appear daily on the stage of the theater of politics? Well, keep in mind! A liberal is likely to do really.
3) The premium now is subtitled: the 5 things to do in Italy in 2006 . Well, I'd put as priority the full liberalization of the labor market.
not say anything new today, stressing that companies can hardly take it more difficult to dismiss. And this, to give a practical example as stated above, is a vicious circle that harms the best and most willing at all vantaggio dei fannulloni, di quelli che appena assunti reclamano subito il diritto al lavoro (e non il dovere al lavoro), di chi tiene famiglia ed anche due o tre lavori paralleli (ed in nero).
Ed invece i liberali devono chiedersi quali siano gli interessi dei cittadini e quali invece quelli delle aziende. Per scegliere immediatamente “il campo dei cittadini” e proporre vere riforme che vadano a loro vantaggio.
Oggigiorno le aziende (del settore in cui opero) oltre alle ingessature congenite del mercato del lavoro italiano ne pensano sempre una più del diavolo. Per tener bloccato il mercato fanno accordi sottobanco con le società di selezione e gli head-hunter arrivando addirittura a vere minacce in caso di “ fishing "for candidates in their territory.
What does all this mean? In a truly liberal country, where each company was free to determine its cost of labor (and social contributions) as a function of its market demand and profitability, every citizen would have in front of a myriad of job opportunities. Most effective would be the subject of the wars of the market (as-perhaps-in football), wages rise to a halt and no one would feel more damaged (and bullied) by her current employer.
contrast, the suspension of the market (and the cartel agreements of the companies) benefit the holders of positions of power, aligning to the low wages of workers and especially by minimizing the opportunities to change jobs.
is then that among the 5 things to do in 2006 we would recommend:

• the elimination of all collective agreements category


• the prohibition of cartels, agreements, covenants, agreements between companies aimed at limiting demand / labor supply and therefore contrary to the interests of employees and the spirit of the principles of freedom;


• the abolition of the obligation of the worker layoff in collaboration with the company to do so through private insurance;


• freedom of hiring and firing agreement between the parties of obvious instruments of social safety nets.

's all, I thank you and greet you all.