I guess I am a rather typical European in the sense that I am the son of an immigrant. I was raised in Vienna, spent time in most European countries and am currently living in Brussels – but, unfortunately (for Europe) I am not typical in my appreciation of the idea of individual liberty.

     Oddly enough, Europe is the place where the idea of individual liberty was embraced as a coherent philosophy – classical liberalism. It is our most precious heritage. But more than Europe has shaped the idea of liberty, it has shaped Europe. Although Liberalism was the dominant political philosophy for only a very brief period, it never replaced statism entirely. As Ludwig von Mises wrote: "Nevertheless, brief and all too limited as the supremacy of liberal ideas was, it sufficed to change the face of the earth."

     Ideas are crucial, because they set a framework for human action by telling good from bad. However, it is a common misconception, held mainly by intellectuals, that ideas or ideologies themselves produce wealth or progress. Yet, the truth is that most people are oblivious to ideas, and are much more focused on their daily striving for a better life for themselves and their families and communities. Classical liberalism may have set the foundation, but since then billions of people have enriched Europe and the world by exercising their natural human liberty.

     We are proud of the great liberal philosophers and economists, and justly so – but our true hero is the forgotten man, to use William Graham Sumner's term. Not those, as statist history makes us believe, who lead troops into battle. Not those, who conquered countries and built empires – but the free individual in his daily pursuit to make best use of his life, liberty, and estate, is the true hero of European history.

     Thus, classical liberalism was not the reason for, but rather a symptom of liberty. What really made liberty possible was the limitations on power brought about by competition and diversity. As David Landes described in his famous book The Wealth and Poverty of Nations, European despotism was mitigated by law, by territorial partition, and by the division of power between competing authorities within states.

     Rosenberg and Birdzell in their account of How the West Grew Rich emphasize: "It seems certain that the development of capitalism in the West owed a good deal to the fragmentation of Europe into a multitude of states and principalities. . . . Competition among the political leaders of the newly emerging nation-states, each anxious to retain the revenues and credits available from a merchant class . . . was an important factor . . .. Had the merchants been dealing with a political monopoly, they might not have been able to purchase the required freedom of action at a price compatible with the development of trade." This is what happened in China for example, where a single wrongheaded decision by the monopoly of power led to its sudden decline: "by 1500, anyone who built a ship of more than two masts was liable to the death penalty, and in 1525 coastal authorities were enjoined to destroy all oceangoing ships and to arrest their owners. Finally in 1551, it became a crime to go to sea on a multi-masted ship, even for trade."

     Is this the direction in which Europe is headed today? How is the free individual faring? One of the headlines this year was the failure of the so called EU "constitution". The term "constitution" is misleading. In fact it is a treaty between governments, which only for reasons of marketing and power politics has been termed a "constitution". While real constitutions are treaties between the government and the governed (usually formulated by citizens to achieve a limitation and reduction of arbitrariness of their governments) – if they can't get rid of them in the first place – this treaty was set up by bureaucrats to get the EU on the road toward further centralization. It would not lead to a limitation of power, but rather it would result in the creation of a European super-state. To use the term "constitution" is nothing but a device to obscure a usurpation of power. It is bureaucrats and governments trying to speak under the guise of "we, the people".

     Predictions are difficult – but history might teach us some lessons on what to expect for the development of the European Union. In particular, the similar experience of a continent's consolidation that was made in the United States, can teach Europeans a lot. I want to draw your attention to some outstanding classical liberal voices that turned out to be somewhat prophetic regarding the creation of the United States. Patrick Henry, for example, exclaimed in the Virginia Ratifying Convention of 1788:

"That this is a consolidated government is demonstrably clear; and the danger of such a government is, to my mind, very striking. I have the highest veneration for those gentlemen; but, sir, give me leave to demand what right had they to say, ‘We, the people?’ My political curiosity, exclusive of my anxious solicitude for the public welfare, leads me to ask, who authorized them to speak the language of, 'We, the people,' instead of, We, the states? States are the characteristics and the soul of a confederation. If the states be not the agents of this compact, it must be one great, consolidated, national government, of the people of all the states. . . . The people gave them no power to use their name. That they exceeded their power is perfectly clear."

     Here, we have someone who clearly understood, much earlier than most of his fellow men, the direction in which the United States was heading. It would no longer be a confederation, even if keeping the name, but in fact a single nation state.

     Of course, you know who these people who stood up as classical liberals against fellow classical liberals were. While they shared almost the same values and the same view on the state of the union, they disagreed over its dynamics. I am talking about the anti-federalists – a voice we sorely lack in the Europe of today. There is virtually no one, who would warn, like the man using the pen name "Centinel:" "if the United States are to be melted down into one empire, it becomes you to consider . . . whether it would be practicable, consistent with freedom? It is the opinion of the greatest writers, that a very extensive country cannot be governed on democratical principles, on any other plan, than a confederation of a number of small republics . . .."

     Or "Brutus," who warned that if the central government is:

"invested with the great and uncontrollable powers, of laying and collecting taxes, duties, imposts, and excises; of regulating trade, raising and supporting armies, organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, instituting courts, and other general powers" and if they are "invested with the power of making all laws, proper and necessary, for carrying all these into execution", that they will "use this power as entirely to annihilate all the state governments, and reduce this country to one single government." Because, according to "Brutus," "it is a truth confirmed by the unerring experience of ages, that every man, and every body of men, invested with power, are ever disposed to increase it, and to acquire a superiority over every thing that stands in their way."

     While other liberals focused on short-term efficiencies of centralization, people like Patrick Henry saw very clearly what the inevitable effects would be in the long run:

"With respect to the economical operation of the new government, I will only remark, that the national expenses will be increased . . . . I might, without incurring the imputation of illiberality or extravagance, say that the expense will be multiplied tenfold. I might tell you of a numerous standing army, a great, powerful navy, a long and rapacious train of officers and dependants, […] whose compensations are without limitation. How are our debts to be discharged unless the taxes are increased, when the expenses of the government are so greatly augmented?"

     He added the timeless warning:

"Congress, by the power of taxation, by that of raising an army, and by their control over the militia, have the sword in one hand, and the purse in the other. Shall we be safe without either? […] where and when did freedom exist, when the sword and purse were given up from the people? Unless a miracle in human affairs interposed, no nation ever retained its liberty after the loss of the sword and purse."

     That the U.S. has not yet descended into a tyranny is only due to the greatness of the American people and their love for liberty. Unlike the U.S., the E.U. has not been conceived in the name of liberty, but in the name of politics, of coercion. Even among "liberals" most seem to be in favor of centralization, because they see only the short-term effects of top-down "liberalization" and increased "efficiency" in decision making, those "liberals" who would draw our attention to the dynamics of centralization and probable long-term losses in liberty, are rare.

     Efficiency, of course, is no value in itself. It is only valuable with reference to an end. We do not want the tax collector to be more efficient?

     Another recurring argument by "liberals" is that only compromise brings peace. This notion derives from the fact that all politics today is run by special interest politics. While compromising between conflicting interests may be necessary for peace, it is not true in the realm of ideas. To strive for compromise in ideas is like doing science or art by compromise.

     What worries me in particular is the ominous recurrence of collectivism and the new Euro-chauvinism in Europe that we see today. Politicians are eager to create a European "people" on whose behalf they can plant the seeds of crisis and conflict by centralization, interventionism, and commandeering the "sword" and the "purse": warfare and welfare. There is a fallacious dilemma that is widely shared in Europe: That you have to choose between either a nation state or a super state. After the horrible experience with nationalism gone wild, many reasonable people were looking for an alternative. Unfortunately, they have settled too early on this deadly, wrong concept. One cannot mitigate nationalism by creating a new European nation. Sadly enough, interventionism – the true cause of conflict and crisis – is only moved to a higher level and not succeeded by the only true alternative: individual liberty.

     Yes, it is true, even the French said "no" to that treaty and hence "no" to that caste of politicians and bureaucrats who are trying to push the Union toward a super-state. And I even believe that on a personal level their reasons were sincere: a growing distrust of politicians, a growing dislike for the arcane bureaucracy that encroaches ever more on everyday life, and a growing apprehension of imminent crisis. However, the ideas that have been force-fed to people in state schools, universities, and media are so weird that it is hard to believe them. These people have ended up thinking that as they face another crisis of interventionism and statism the real threat was "ultraliberalism." They harbor the illusion that the reason why they are discontented; why they are voting against the constitution; why their politicians fail; why unemployment increases and wealth decreases; is capitalism. There does not seem to be much logic to that.

     Nevertheless, it is not completely illogical: those propagating these illusions, politicians, bureaucrats, intellectuals are thriving as a result. It is not illogical for an academic to try to convince the people that it is their "right," to have a life tenure at a very high wage at the expense of precisely the people, who for the most part never benefit from his very doubtful "services." As Bastiat noted so eloquently: "The state is the great fiction by which everybody seeks to live at the expense of everybody else." Even more so the upcoming super-state of the European Union, which offers endless employment opportunities for otherwise unemployable political scientists or sociologists. As Mises observed: "He who is unfit to serve his fellow citizens wants to rule them."

     So far, you might think that I must have gotten something wrong with the title of my speech. Shouldn't it be: "Why individual liberty is doomed and how the European Union will blossom?" Don't worry, I will try to find some reason for a cautious optimism. No state can blossom or even survive for long without individuals being able to produce the wealth that the state and its parasitic bureaucracy feeds upon.

     The free individual, our hero, how is he or she getting along? While most ideas circulating in today's Europe are as pernicious as they were in yesterday's Europe, most people today are as wonderful as they were yesterday. They might not care for ideas, but when asked to do so, spew out "la merde" they have been force-fed for so long. They might not care for politics, but when asked to do so, will cast a ballot for indistinguishable parties. What they really care for, is to improve their lives and the lives of those who they hold dear. And even if they are not as eloquent in giving explicit reasons for their behavior and, thus, in rationalizing their faults, like intellectuals do, people are usually pretty sophisticated on how to improve their lives. The same government employee who is paid for advocating state-controlled education, is likely to put his child into a private school, because the well-being of his child does matter and is his personal responsibility. The same merchant who is a strong advocate of government intervention to protect him from unwanted competition, is likely to trust the security of his merchandize to a private company rather than to the police. The same farmer who demands ever more subsidies, is likely to prefer a private physician to a state-run hospital. Everywhere in Europe, this trend away from failing government provision to privately provided goods and services is obvious and undeniable.

     And even in the realm of ideas, not all hope is in vain. In particular the young are becoming increasingly skeptical about their teachers' and parents' ideas. Currently, there is an almost suffocating dominance of a particular set of ideas in classrooms – often referred to as the "heritage of 1968". This is not entirely true, because in the 1960s there was still some more individualism alive, but, in fact, only unbridled statism remains today. It is a mix of ecological fanaticism, disguised socialism, a hatred of the West and alleged bourgeoisie – pursued by bourgeois westerners with pseudo-religious zeal.

     Apart from what I would call the "statist establishment," there are partly overlapping and partly opposing groups, which are vocal in the battle of ideas. I will call them the political reformers. Both statist establishment and political reformers share the concept of the primacy of politics. While the statists promise a land of plenty in "another world that is possible" and despise what they call the "Sachzwänge" or economic constraints, the reformers are slightly more market-oriented. They would curb deficits, reduce taxes, and introduce a flat tax – aims that are contradictory, unless state expenditures are dramatically cut (which does not seem to be politically feasible). Both the establishment and the reformers acknowledge the need for change, even if their proposal lead in opposite directions. Both fail to offer visions of where the chosen direction would lead.

     The closest to a vision of "another world that is possible" is in fact the global Ständestaat – a polity of estates – a world state where bureaucrats, NGOs and other self-appointed representatives would rule. This is precisely what large parts of the establishment advocate. In contrast, the reformers' closest approach to a vision is a Europe which is more "competitive" and stronger, through government expenditures in "education" and "information" and "infrastructure" and so on. Same game, different name.

     The real hope for liberty lies and falls with individual behavior and ideas, which may either advocate encroachments on individual liberty of cherish it. When wrong ideas prevail, politics cannot but fail. Unless liberty is valued and responsibility accepted, in which case politics would actually become unnecessary, it is confined to a top-down approach.

     What I propose instead, is to go bottom-up. While political changes need a majority and always imply coercion, in the battle of ideas also an irate, tireless minority may do very well. The so-called revolution of 1968 showed an approximate participation of 5% of that generation. 5% that is 1-2 students per classroom. It very much seems like defenders of individual liberty are getting there. I am receiving a lot of email from 18-year-olds who are surprised to learn that they are not alone. They say things like "I have always felt that there was something wrong with the way my teachers presented history, economics, and politics. But I thought that maybe there was something wrong with me, as I knew of no-one else who thought the same way." Another student told me that he had always been striving for "another world that is possible," which the enemies of individual liberty relentlessly promise, but the only coherent vision, he finally found, was in the philosophy of individual liberty.

     On the one hand, people are increasingly looking for new answers. While they feel that something is wrong, and are right in their distrust of politicians, they are again and again tricked into harmful illusions. The trick works like that: For collectivists, if something is wrong, this means that there is something wrong with "the system". Now, what is the system we live in? It is "capitalism." Therefore, something has to be wrong with capitalism.

     We are better than that. Our arguments and our visions are superior. Liberty will survive and blossom, if the idea of liberty survives and blossom. There is no better time than now to re-introduce classical liberal ideas – when interventionism's failure is becoming more and more evident; while those wrong ideas have become mainstream and part of the establishment – and are therefore on the defensive. The best news is: ideas need only a minority to be spread. Good ideas are contagious. And only minorities care about ideas in the first place.

     Equally important is the second task: To support people in improving their lives without – and despite politics. This support needs not be more than living a bright example. Ayn Rand put it this way: "The choice is independence or dependence. The code of the creator or the code of the second-hander."

     As simple as this may sound, it demands from us patience and maybe short-time sacrifices. To avail ourselves on the very coercive system we want to downsize, to live off coercively collected money, taxes that is, and to strive for public office, would seriously undermine the long-term credibility of liberal ideas, despite of all the good intentions underlying these strategic considerations. "We have to practice, what we preach."

     "Why the European Union is doomed and how liberty can blossom" was the title of my speech and I think that this prophecy can finally be made a self- fulfilling one. Even if people know nothing about the idea of liberty, their natural devotion to life enables them to surmount many obstacles.

     Rose Wilder Lane had so eloquently described this elusive nature of living and conscious beings:

"Nobody can plan the actions of even a thousand living persons, separately. Anyone attempting to control millions must divide them into classes, and make a plan applying to these classes. But these classes do not exist. No two persons are alike. […] Therefore the men who try to enforce, in real life, a planned economy that is their theory, come up against the infinite diversity of human beings. The most slavish multitude of men that was ever called "demos" or "labor" or "capital" or "agriculture" or "the masses," actually are men; they are not sheep. Naturally, by their human nature, they escape in all directions from regulations applying to non-existent classes."

     If in this natural tendency of human beings to choose and to act, in this explosive power of human energy, falls the spark of the right ideas at the right time, we can expect those terrific outbursts of liberty that have created civilization.

     No force can turn a voluntary slave into a free individual, but, equally, no force can contain human energy once it is set loose.

     Let's set it loose!

Rahim Taghizadegan is president of the "Liberale Initiative" (LI), a free-market think tank based in Vienna, Austria and wihch addresses the entire German-speaking world. It publishes the most comprehensive and most-visited website on classical liberalism in German www.liberal.li and offers seminars on Austrian Economics and other topics. Rahim studied applied physics, economics, and sociology in Vienna and Lausanne (Switzerland). He was worked in politics, space research, and journalism and is founder of the company www.homoagens.com .