The book’s first selections are from the writings of Icelandic historians Ari the Learned and Snorri Sturluson. In a famous speech at the Icelandic Parliament in the year 1000, the Lawspeaker, Thorgeir from Brightlake District, emphasised, according to Ari the Learned, that the Icelanders had no king but the law, unlike the other Nordic nations where kings waged endless wars and imposed heavy taxes. The same theme was found in Snorri’s account of another famous speech, by the farmer Einar from Thverá at the Parliament in the year 1024. In Snorri’s Heimskringla, the history of the Norwegian kings, two ancient Germanic principles are taken for granted: government by consent and the right of rebellion. Later, the English philosopher John Locke built a systematic defence of liberty on those two principles.

Hannes said that the three most remarkable Nordic conservative-liberal thinkers were Snorri, the Swedish pastor and politician Anders Chydenius, and the Danish pastor and poet N. F. S. Grundtvig. In 1765, Chydenius had anticipated the two powerful ideas articulated eleven years later in Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations: that one man’s profit need not be another man’s loss; and that order could arise spontaneously, without commands. In the nineteenth century, Grundtvig had argued, much in the same manner as the French writer Alexis de Tocqueville, for free associations that could serve as both guardians and outlets for individuals, such as congregations, people’s high schools, various societies, collectives, cooperatives, and private companies.

The audience included the Icelandic Ambassador to Spain, Kristján Andri Stefánsson, and a lively discussion followed Hannes’ talk. The Czech student Jonáš Kurus asked about the connection of religion to the Germanic political tradition. Hannes replied that the roots of Germanic tribal self-government were pre-Christian, just as the Roman chronicler Tacitus had described in the first century AD. Admittedly, a principle of Roman law was that what affected all should be decided by all, Quod omnes tangit ab omnibus approbetur, but this had not been a general principle as in the customary law of the Germanic tribes. However, St. Thomas Aquinas accepted the right to rebel if and when kings became tyrants. Natural law in the Thomist tradition certainly had acted as a restraint on kings, but not to the same extent as Germanic customary law.

From left: Hannes, Breki, Schweiger and Tyler.

The German student Anne Struffmann asked what other nations could learn from the Nordic example. Hannes replied that the relative success of the Nordic countries was not because, but in spite of, social democracy. The Nordic heritage of liberty had been strong enough to withstand both the past assaults by kings invoking the grace of God and the modern assaults by social democrats invoking the will of the People. The success of the Nordic countries rested, Hannes said, on three pillars: the rule of law, including strong protection of private property rights, free trade, and social cohesion, which implied a robust civic spirit. But such a social cohesion could not be constructed. It developed over a long time, through compromises and mutual adjustments.  Nevertheless, newly liberated nations in the South could learn from Grundtvig to try and transform peasants into responsible citizens and the masses into self-conscious nations by means of people’s high schools.

Other speakers at the conferences included three friends of Iceland who have often visited: Professor David D. Friedman, Dr. Tom G. Palmer 0f the Atlas Network, and Robert Tyler of New Direction. They have all studied the Icelandic chronicles and sagas. The conference was attended by two other Icelanders, Lukas Schweiger, former Chairman of European Students for Liberty, and Breki Atlason, the Icelandic coordinator of European Students for Liberty.

The oldest event described in the book took place in 946, when Norwegian King Haakon the Good returned to his subjects the land that his father, King Harold Fairhair, had expropriated, and promised to uphold the ancient law of the land, which could be traced back thousands of years to the customary law of the Germanic tribes, as described by the Roman chronicler Tacitus. The most recent event was in 1945, when Danish communists tried to restrict freedom of expression just to those who accepted democratic values, while Poul Andersen recalled Grundtvig’s exclamation that freedom was for Loki as well as for Thor. Snorri Sturluson, Anders Chydenius, and N. F. S. Grundtvig contribute most to the anthology, which contains 468 pages, of which 267 pages are the introduction.

At the 2026 Liberty Forum, RNH Academic Director, Hannes H. Gissurarson, Professor Emeritus of Politics at the University of Iceland, presented on 9 April a forthcoming book that he edits and introduces, Conservative-Liberal Thought in the Nordic Countries, 946–1945: An Anthology. It is 468 pages, of which 267 are his introduction. The first selections from the writings of Nordic authors are by the Icelandic chroniclers Ari the Learned and Snorri Sturluson, and the last ones by the Norwegian economist Trygve Hoff and the Danish law professor Poul Andersen. The anthology is published by the Brussels think tank New Direction.

In his talk in Porto Alegre, Hannes Gissurarson said that the success of the Nordic countries was despite, and not because of, social democracy. Its three main explanations were: a strong tradition of the rule of law; a firm commitment to free trade; and social cohesion, reflected in a high level of trust. Hannes also suggested an explanation of the tradition of hard work in the Nordic countries (possibly now being eroded by sloth, made possible by generous welfare benefits). It is that, over the centuries, the Nordic nations had to prepare for and endure harsh winters through hard work, unable to collect low-hanging fruit from trees in milder climates.

Oddsson addressing in 2016 a meeting celebrating 25 years since Iceland renewed her recognition of the Baltic countries.

The most successful Icelandic politician of all time, Davíd Oddsson, passed away on 1 March 2026. He was Mayor of Reykjavik for 9 years, Prime Minister for almost 14 years, Foreign Minister for a year, Governor of the Central Bank of Iceland for four years, and Chief Editor of Morgunbladid, the only remaining daily in Iceland, for almost 17 years, from 2009 to his death. No Icelandic politician has done more to increase individual freedom and protect citizens’ rights against the state. On the day of Davíd’s funeral, 13 March, Morgunbladid printed many articles about him, including a long one by one of his closest friends, Hannes H. Gissurarson, Professor Emeritus of Politics at the University of Iceland. Hannes offered three explanations of Davíd’s great success as a politician. First, the circumstances worked in his favour, he was the right man at the right time, riding on the same wave as Thatcher in Great Britain and Reagan in the United States. Secondly, his political views were deeply rooted in the Icelandic national spirit; he was an extraordinary man with ordinary beliefs. Thirdly, he had the personal qualities of an effective politician. He had great charisma, and he was, in Machiavelli’s phrase, brave as a lion and sly as a fox. From the beginning, he was seen as a born leader. Hannes also published two articles in The Conservative on Davíd, an obituary, and a defence of his legacy on the occasion of leftist attacks.

Davíd was given a full state funeral in Hallgrímskirkja in Reykjavík, with a sermon delivered by the Rev. Geir Waage (the father-in-law of Davíd’s son Thorsteinn, a judge in the Reykjavík District Court). The ten pallbearers were (from right): Davíd’s loyal supporter, businessman Kjartan Gunnarsson; Davíd’s schoolmate and friend, the poet Thórarinn Eldjárn; Davíd’s loyal supporter, businessman Thórólfur Gíslason; Davíd’s colleague at Morgunbladid, Editor Haraldur Johannessen; Hannes H. Gissurarson; the surgeon Eiríkur Jónsson, who successfully treated Davíd for cancer; Davíd’s former adviser on international affairs, Albert Jónsson; Davíd’s cousin, Supreme Court Judge Ólafur Börkur Thorvaldsson; Central Bank Governor Dr. Ásgeir Jónsson; and Davíd’s loyal supporter, businessman Gunnlaugur Sævar Gunnlaugsson. Immediately following them were Davíd’s widow, Ástrídur Thorarensen, and their son, Thorsteinn Davídsson.

In the first article, Hannes commented on the names on a board at the entrance, each the nominal head of a table at the dinner. They gave a good idea of who inspires the contemporary conservative movement. There were six politicians on the list: British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, U.S. President Ronald Reagan, Polish President Lech Kaczyński, German Chancellor Konrad Adenauer, Australian Prime Minister John Howard, and Polish Marshal and Prime Minister Józef Piłsudski. Two other individuals on the board, Pope John Paul II and American writer William Buckley, might perhaps also be considered politicians. Hannes wrote that he had only met one of the eight, Thatcher, several times.

The writers in the group were Joseph de Maistre, Roger Scruton, Friedrich von Hayek, Edmund Burke, Giuseppe Prezzolini, Giacomo Leopardi, Milton Friedman, Benedetto Croce, Ludwig von Mises, Thomas Sowell, Alexis de Tocqueville, Mihai Eminescu, and Alessandro Manzoni. Hannes admitted that he had never before heard of Prezzolini and Eminescu, but that he was familiar with the works of Maistre, Burke, Leopardi, Croce, Mises, Tocqueville, and Manzoni. He had briefly met Scruton and Sowell at conferences, but he had been fortunate enough to get to know Hayek and Friedman quite well. He had arranged their visits to Iceland: Hayek came in 1980 and Friedman in 1984, and they both made a great impact. Personally, he would have liked to see Luigi Einaudi on the board rather than Benedetto Croce, and he regarded Maistre more as a reactionary than a real conservative.

The second article was about three Icelanders who had travelled to Rome. The first was Gudrid Thorbjornsdaughter, who led a remarkable life. Born in Iceland, she went in the 990s to Greenland, where she married. She and her husband went to what is now called North America in 1008 and tried to settle there. She gave birth to a son in America, the first child of European descent in America. Later, the family returned to Iceland and settled there. After Gudridur became a widow, she went on a pilgrimage to Rome around 1030. She was probably the most widely-travelled individual of her time. The second traveller to Rome was the poet Einar Benediktsson in 1903. He composed the poem ‘An Evening in Rome’ where he contrasted the glory of the Roman Republic with the corruption under the emperors, but also marvelled at the great cultural heritage the Romans left. The third traveller was Jón Thorláksson in 1923, on a belated honeymoon with his wife. He was a civil engineer who eventually became Iceland’s prime minister and leader of the conservative-liberal Independence Party. As he looked at the ruins of the Forum Romanum, he was on the verge of tears at the destruction of the once-proud city. Hannes H. Gissurarson wrote the biography of Jón Thorláksson, published in 1992.

From left: Mitchell, Hannes, Tyler, and Fund.

At the dinner, Hannes was seated with three friends of Iceland who have often visited, Robert Tyler of New Direction, John Fund of National Review, and Dr. Dan Mitchell of Freedom and Prosperity Foundation. Others winners of the Margaret Thatcher Awards included Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya, Leader of the Belarus opposition, Lord Michael Gove and French philosopher Rémi Brague. In Rome, Hannes also met with Sigmundur Davíd Gunnlaugsson, Chairman of the Icelandic Centre Party, and representatives of the Party’s youth wing that were attended a training camp run by Giorgia Meloni’s party, Fratelli d’Italia. The Centre Party is probably going to join the European Conservatives and Reformists, ECR. Previously, the Independence Party was a member, but it now has left the ECR and joined the European People’s Party, EPP. Hannes, Sigmundur Davíd, and the young Centre Party people had a good time in Rome, at the historic Harry’s Bar on Via Veneto and in other places.

The prize for the most promising business venture was given to Hordur Orri Grettisson of Laxey, for the deal of the year to Hjorleifur Jakobsson of Askja, for leadership in business to Thorsteinn Mar Baldvinsson of Samherji, for entrepreneurship to Finnur Adalbjornsson and Sigridur Maria Hammer of Forest Lagoon (Skogarbod), and for social initiatives to Jon Gudni Omarsson of Iceland Bank. A portrait of Thorsteinn Mar Baldvinsson by Sigurdur Saevar Magnusarson was unveiled at the Gala Dinner.

Deirdre McCloskey. Photo: Policy Exchange.

RNH Academic Director, Hannes H. Gissurarson, Professor Emeritus of Politics at the University of Iceland, attended a meeting of the Mont Pelerin Society in Marrakech in Morocco 7–10 October 2025. The MPS was founded by Friedrich A. von Hayek in April 1947. Its founding members included Milton Friedman, George J. Stigler and Maurice Allais, who were all to receive the Nobel Prize in Economics, as did Hayek. Other prominent founding members were Frank H. Knight, the father of the Chicago School of Economics, Ludwig von Mises, the father of the Austrian School of Economics, the philosophers Karl R. Popper from England and Bertrand de Jouvenel from France, the political theorist Herbert Tingsten and the economist Eli F. Heckscher from Sweden, and the economists Trygve Hoff from Norway, and Luigi Einaudi from Italy (who became President of Italy in 1948). Shortly afterwards, Ludwig Erhard, the author of the German economic miracle, and Reinhard Kamitz, the author of the Austrian economic miracle, joined the MPS. In the 1980s and 1990s, other successful reformers joined, including Sir Roger Douglas and Ruth Richardson from New Zealand, Vaclav Klaus from the Czech Republic and Mart Laar from Estonia. Some Nobel Laureates alongside the four founding members have belonged to the MPS, Gary S. Becker, Ronald H. Coase, James M. Buchanan and Vernon Smith in Economics and Mario Vargas Llosa in Literature. Prominent writers have also been members, including Otto von Habsburt, the heir in 1916–1918 to the Austrian-Hungarian throne, and Henry Hazlitt from the United States. The MPS has from the beginning sought to be a forum for discussions about freedom, its problems and prospects. Gissurarson attended his first meeting at Stanford in 1980, invited by Hayek. He became a member in 1984 and was on the Board of Directors in 1998–2004.

The Marrakech meeting was held at the Es Saadi hotel, and the theme was ‘Reaching New Audiences for Classical Liberalism’. The MPS President, Professor Deirdre McCloskey, addressed the opening dinner. Sessions were devoted to various topics, such as the dissemination of classical liberalism through cultural creations, the relationship between islam and liberty, and the challenges to the open society. At a luncheon Professor Peter J. Boettke and Dr. Nils Karlson debated whether classical liberals were progressing in the right direction. Professor Gabriel Calzada, former MPS President, addressed the closing dinner which took place in the Soleiman Palace. The Chatham Rule applies to meetings of the MPS which implies that direct quotations from talks are not allowed. The Marrakech meeting was ably organised by Dr. Nouh El Harmouzi from Morocco and Michel-Kelly Magnon from Canada. On the last day of the meeting, the participants went on an excursion around Marrakech, visiting the Bahia Palace and other places.

Gissurarson used the opportunity to meet a few friends of Iceland, including Dr. Eamonn Butler from the Adam Smith Institute in London, Dr. Barbara Kolm from the Austrian Economics Center in Vienna, Dr. Phillip Magness from the Independent Institute in Oakland, Dr. Tom Palmer from Atlas Network in Washington DC, Dr. Nils Karlson from Ratio Institute in Stockholm, Professor Alberto Mingardi from IULM in Milan, and Terry Anker from Liberty Fund, Indianapolis. On one free evening, the Nordic participants had dinner together, all from Sweden except Professor Gissurarson. From left: Susanne Karlson, André Dammert, Professor Lotta Stern, Gissurarson, Nils Karlson, Anders Ydstedt, and Professor Carl-Gustaf Thulin.

Júlíus Viggó Ólafsson.

The meeting hall of the Icelandic House of Museums (Safnahusid) was packed on Saturday 4 October when Students for Liberty Europe and RSE, the Icelandic Research Centre for Social and Economic Affairs, jointly held a conference on ‘The European Union: Friend or Foe of Liberty?’ Breki Atlason, the Icelandic coordinator of Students for Liberty, chaired the meeting, while Professor Emeritus Hannes H. Gissurarson, on behalf of RSE, introduced the speakers and directed the questions and answers period. Júlíus Viggó Ólafsson, economics students at the University of Iceland and the leader of Young Independents, gave a short opening address. He said that young people were increasingly rejecting the Left, both in Iceland and elsewhere, but that even if some of them turned to national conservatism, it was important that they did not reject economic freedom, the engine of progress. Dr. Eamonn Butler, former Director of the Adam Smith Institute in London and the author of several books on classical liberal themes, spoke first in the former session. He is an old friend of Iceland, being one of the few who publicly protested against the use of an anti-terrorism law against Iceland during the 2008 Icelandic bank collapse. Butler said that Brexit, the exit of Great Britain from the European Union, was for him and other Brexiteers about regaining control of their own country, instead of seeing it transferred it to a non-transparent, undemocratic, non-accountable bureaucracy in Brussels. Brexit was, he submitted, a success in that indeed Great Britain had regained her sovereignty, but what he and other Brexiteers had underestimated was the sheer malevolence of the Brussels bureaucrats who had tried to make the process as difficult and cumbersome as possible.

From left: Breki Atlason, Eamonn Butler, John Fund, and Ragnar Árnason.

When introducing John Fund, Editor of National Review and commentator on Fox News, Professor Gissurarson quoted the old Chinese curse: May you live in interesting times. Indeed, the Americans now lived in interesting times, he said. Fund spoke about the rise of populism in North America and Europe. It signified a widespread feeling, he said, that the ruling elites on those two continents were ignoring the interests and ideas of ordinary people, not least the worry that left-wing extremists and religious zealots from afar were imposing their views on others. Fund added that the Icelanders were facing a historic decision about the European Union: whether or not to transfer control from Reykjavik to Brussels. If they decided to defy the elites, it would be noted all over the world. Fund was interviewed by Morgunbladid on 4 October and by RUV, the government broadcasting station, on 6 October where he mainly discussed American politics.

Ragnar Árnason, Professor Emeritus of Economics at the University of Iceland, pointed out what he regarded as obvious: You only decide to join an association if you think that it will benefit you in some way. In his estimate, the costs for Iceland of joining the European Union were much greater than the benefits. Iceland was one of the most prosperous European countries, like two other non-members, Norway and Switzerland, and therefore she would be a net contributor to the European Union. She had great natural resources, undoubtedly coveted in Brussels. Moreover, Iceland did not have to join the EU in order to ensure her security: She already had a defence treaty with the United States and she was a member state of NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. If Iceland became a member country, she would have no more say on European affairs than other small European countries which had, as everybody could observe, negligible influence. Árnason added that even if it was concluded that the benefits of membership would slightly outweigh the costs, there was an additional invisible cost which was that under the circumstances of uncertainty, the decision was almost irreversible. Therefore, even if the benefits were estimated to outweigh the costs, it would be rational to postpone a decision until it was clear what the future would hold. There was more to lose from the decision to join if it turned out to be wrong than there was to gain from it if it turned out to be sensible.

Árnason Slides

A lively discussion followed the first session. Dr. Daniel Mitchell of the Freedom and Prosperity Association in Washington DC spoke first in the second session. He pointed out that the gap between living standards in the United States and the European Union had increased in the last few decades. The EU countries had stagnated, and this was, he submitted, because they enjoyed less economic freedom and suffered higher taxes than the United States. He illustrated this with a lot of graphs whose data were all from respected sources such as the World Bank. The EU was a sinking ship, he said. It might have been sensible by the poorer nations of Europe to join the EU to ensure their security and to improve their legal framework, but it made no sense for Iceland. After the conference, Mitchell wrote a blog about it.

Mitchell Slides

Siri Terjesen.

When introducing the two last speakers, Siri Terjesen, Professor of Economics at Florida Pacific University, and Gale Pooley, Professor of Economics at Utah Tech University, Professor Gissurarson reminded the audience of another Chinese saying: Lit the candle instead of just cursing the darkness. These two speakers were going to talk about hope, the possibility of a better future for young people despite bureaucrats and demagogues, the conditions for progress, economic growth, improved living standards. Terjesen explained to the audience the great benefits of encouraging entrepreneurship by moderate taxes and an efficient but light regulatory framework. Pooley introduced a new way of thinking about living standards. It was not in terms of money, not even money adjusted to the price level. This was thinking in terms of ‘time price’ which was money price divided by hourly income. Progress was that it was taking lesser and lesser time to earn the money to buy goods. For example, for the time you had to work in 1952 to buy an air conditioning unit, you could in 2024 for the same time get 45. 5 units. For the time you had to work in 1900 to buy one bottle of Coca Cola, you could in 2023 for the same time get 55.2 bottles. Pooley emphasised the creativity of human beings, as he had done in his recent book, coauthored with Marian Tupy, Superabundance.

Terjesen Slides

Pooley Slides

Snorri Másson.

Snorri Másson, Member of Parliament for the Centre Party, made some brief closing remarks. He said that a massive onslaught on the freedom of speech had taken place in the West in recent years, under the banners of wokeism and cancel culture. It was crucial for young people to resist this onslaught. It should never be forgotten that freedom was also the freedom to express unpopular opinions. After the conference, RSE invited all the participants to a reception on the premises where a lively discussion took place again. In the evening, the foreign speakers and the leadership of Students for Liberty Europe attended a barbecue at Professor Gissurarson’s home, where Einar Arnalds Kristjánsson was in charge of cooking. Lukas Schweiger, a former Chairman of Students for Liberty Europe and an Austrian resident in Iceland, Halla Margrét Hilmarsdóttir, a veteran of Students for Liberty Europe, and Gísli Valdórsson, project manager at RSE, also helped organise the conference and contributed much to its success.

Gissurarson then discussed the lack of democracy and transparancy in the present EU institutions, especially in the EU Commission, and in the Court of Justice of the EU. He suggested that the EU should be reformed and the Subsidiarity Principle should be reinstated as its guiding principle. He outlined six ideas to reform the EU: 1) the Commission should be turned into an ordinary civil service, 2) legislative power should be partly returned to national parliaments and partly transferred to the European Parliament, 3) the European Parliament should be split into two chambers, one the present European Council, the other one the present Parliament, 4) penalities should be applied to the governors of the European Central Bank if they break the rules in its Charter (as they have blatantly done), 5) the Court of Justice of the EU should be split into two, a Subsidiarity Court only about whether that principle was broken, and another Court, dealing with other issues, and 6) judges should not be selected from a pool of euroenthusiasts, but from the ranks of experienced judges.

Gissurarson observed that Iceland, a remote island in the north, was never a part of the continental project, the decision by the French and the Germans to stop their endless wars. He recalled the history of the Icelandic Commonwealth, where chieftains and farmers had emphasised Icelandic exceptionalism. It was no coincidence, Gissurarson added, that the three richest countries in Europe, Switzerland, Norway, and Iceland, were all outside the EU. He also discussed a remarkable speech given by euroenthusiast Guy Verhofstadt in Iceland on 21 September where he said, quite firmly, 1) that the EU should become a superpower competing with the US and China, and 2) that the member states had to be all in or all out, as the EU was not a menu from which you could choose what you wanted, as the British had imagined.

Gissurarson then briefly introduced the speakers at the forthcoming conference, commenting that perhaps they could help the audience to understand some important issues: Dr. Eamonn Butler on Brexit; John Fund on American politics; Professor Ragnar Árnason on arguments for and against Iceland joining the EU; Dr. Daniel Mitchell on the stagnation in the EU compared to the US; Professor Siri Terjesen on the hope that creativity and entrepreneurship provide for young people; and Professor Gale Pooley on the remarkable findings of his new book on Superabundance.