Deirdre McCloskey. Photo: Policy Exchange.

RNH Academic Director, Hannes H. Gissurarson, Professor Emeritus of Politics at the University of Iceland, attended the special meeting of the Mont Pelerin Society in Marrakech 7–10 October 2025. The Society was founded in April 1947 by Friedrich A. von Hayek, Milton Friedman, George J. Stigler and Maurice Allais, all later to receive the Nobel Prize in Economics. Other prominent founding members included Frank H. Knight, father of the Chicago School of Economics, Ludwig von Mises, father of the Austrian School of Economics, philosophers Karl R. Popper from the United Kingdom and Bertrand de Jouvenel from France, political scientist Herbert Tingsten and economist Eli F. Heckscher from Sweden, economist Trygve J. B. Hoff from Norway and economist Luigi Einaudi from Italy (President of Italy in 1948–1955). Shortly afterwards, Ludwig Erhard, father of the German Economic Miracle, and Reinhard Kamitz, father of the Austrian Economic Miracle, joined the Society. In the 1980s and 1990s, other successful reformers joined the Society, including Sir Roger Douglas and Ruth Richardson of New Zealand, Vaclav Klaus of the Czech Republic, and Mart Laar of Estonia. Nobel Laureates in Economics Gary Becker, Ronald H. Coase, James M. Buchanan and Vernon L. Smith, all from the United States, and Nobel Laureate in Literature Mario Vargas Llosa from Peru also belonged to the Society. Influential commentators on current affairs such as Dr. Otto von Habsburg, Crown Prince of Austria-Hungary in 1916–1918, and Henry Hazlitt from the United States were members as well. The aim of the Mont Pelerin Society was, and is, to be a forum for the discussion of liberal principles and policies (liberal in the old European meaning of the word: in the tradition of John Locke and Adam Smith). Professor Gissurarson attended his first meeting at Stanford in 1980, sponsored by Hayek, became a member in 1984 and served on the Board of Directors in 1998–2004.

The Marrakech meeting was held at the Es Saadi Palace Hotel, and its theme was ‘Reaching New Audiences for Classical Liberalism’. The President of the Society, Professor Deirdre McCloskey, gave an address at the opening dinner. Sessions were devoted to various topics, such as the dissemination of classical liberal ideas through cultural creations, Islam’s compatability with liberty, and challenges facing the Open Society. Over lunch one day, Professor Peter J. Boettke and Dr. Nils Karlson engaged in a lively discussion about whether classical liberalism was progressing in the right direction. Professor Gabriel Calzada, a former President of the Society, gave an address at the closing dinner, held in the magnificent Soleiman Palace. The Chatham House rule applies to meetings of the Mont Pelerin Society, that participants are not supposed to quote the speakers. The two organisers of this very successful meeting were Dr. Nouh El Harmouzi, Director of the Arab Center for Research in Morocco, and Michel Kelly-Gagnon, President of the Montreal Economic Institute in Canada. On the last day of the meeting, the participants went on an excursion around Marrakech and to the Bahia Palace, the former residence of the French governor of Morocco.

Professor Gissurarson used the opportunity to meet with some friends of Iceland who have been speakers at past events in Reykjavík, including Dr. Eamonn Butler of the Adam Smith Institute in London, Dr. Barbara Kolm of the Austrian Economics Center in Vienna, Dr. Phillip Magness of the Independent Institute in Oakland, Dr. Tom Palmer of the Atlas Network in Washington DC, Dr. Nils Karlson of Ratio Institute in Stockholm, Professor Alberto Mingardi of the IULM University in Milan, and Terry Anker of Liberty Fund, Indianapolis. One evening, the Nordic participants in the meeting, all from Sweden except Gissurarson, went out together for dinner. From left: Susanne Karlson, André Dammert, Professor Lotta Stern, Professor Hannes H. Gissurarson, Dr. Nils Karlson, Anders Ydstedt, og 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.

RNH Academic Director Hannes H. Gissurarson published an article in Morgunbladid on 2 October 2025, promoting a conference to be held on 4 October by Students of Liberty Europe and RSE, the Icelandic Research Centre for Social and Economic Affairs, on ‘The European Union: Friend or Foe of Liberty’. He said that initially the EU was a force for economic freedom in Europe, facilitating the free movement of capital, goods, services, and people across borders, the celebrated four freedoms. This was quite successful. Economic integration, benefitting everybody, had been more or less accomplished in the early 1990s. But in the 1990s, forces that wanted political integration, centralisation, even a European superpower, took over. After the 1989 collapse of the Berlin Wall, France only supported German reunification if Germany would support further centralisation, and the euro.

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.

At the European Resource Bank in Vienna on 2 October 2025, economist and entrepreneur Max Rangeley presented the book that he has co-edited with Lord Daniel Hannan, Free Trade in the Twenty-First Century, recently published by Springer Nature. The contributors include Nobel Laureate Vernon Smith, former prime ministers of the United Kingdom and of Australia Liz Truss and Tony Abbot, veteran liberal economists Eamonn Butler, Walter E. Block and Richard M. Ebeling, Lords (and former British government ministers) Peter Lilley and Syed Kamall, renowned economic historian Deirdre McCloskey (President of the Mont Pelerin Society), and RNH Academic Director, Professor Emeritus Hannes H. Gissurarson, who writes about free trade in the Nordic countries. ‘We hope, in the essays that follow, not only to set out the definitive case for free trade in the twenty-first century but also to recapture some of the moral fervour of its original advocates, the sense that they were engaged in a great and just cause,’ the editors write in their Preface. ‘To economists, the benefits of specialisation and comparative advantage are so obvious as to be uncontroversial. Free trade is one of the very few precepts that can be said to command general acceptance within their profession.’ Nevertheless, protectionism is on the rise. The case for free trade has to be restated, the editors say.

In his talk at the European Resource Bank, Professor Gissurarson observed a seismic shift in European politics. On the left, Gramsci had replaced Lenin as the prophet. The Left had established hegemony in the universities, in the media and in public institutions, even the courts. But it might destroy itself by its absurd wokeism and cancel culture, rejected by all normal people, according to Gissurarson. On the right, the traditional conservative-liberal parties had not realised that the free movement of capital, goods, services, and people (the celebrated ‘four freedoms’) could not include the free movement across borders of criminal gangs, religious zealots (in particular Muslim extremists) and people in search solely of welfare benefits. Gissurarson quoted Friedrich A. von Hayek in The Times on 11 October 1978: ‘While I look forward, as an ultimate ideal, to a state of affairs in which national boundaries have ceased to be obstacles to the free movement of men,’ he declared, ‘I believe that within any period with which we can now be concerned, any attempt to realize it would lead to a revival of strong nationalist sentiments.’

Hayek was certainly prescient, Gissurarson submitted. In Great Britain, Germany, and France, according to the polls, anti-immigration parties are now larger than the traditional centre-right parties. The important task is, Gissurarson said, to direct these strong nationalist sentiments into liberal rather than authoritarian channels, and it could be done by keeping borders open for hard-working, honest, law-obedient, productive immigrants, while resolutely closing the borders to criminal gangs, religious zealots and idle welfare seekers, who should either not be allowed in or deported immediately when found out. Free trade should not be sacrificed on the altar of unrestricted immigration. Other speakers included Dr. Barbara Kolm, Director of the Austrian Economics Center in Vienna, Pieter Cleppe, Editor-in-Chief of BrusselsReport.eu, and Professor Christopher Lingle who celebrated his 77th birthday on the same day, 2 October 2025, standing in the middle in the group photograph below, with Gissurarson on his right and Cleppe on his left.

On 23 September 2025, The Icelandic Literary Society (Hid íslenska bókmenntafélag) published an essay by the late Sigurdur Líndal, Professor of Law at the University of Iceland, and widely acknowledged as one of the most learned academics in Iceland in the twentieth century. The title of the 134 pp. essay, originally published in Úlfljótur, the journal of Icelandic law students, in 2007, is ‘Snorri Sturluson’s Political Philosophy as it Appears in Heimskringla’. Snorri Sturluson (1179–1241) is widely believed to be the author of three major works, Edda, the most extensive source on Norse mythology, Heimskringla, a chronicle of the Norwegian kings until the late twelfth century, and The Saga of Egil, the story of a remarkable Icelandic viking-poet. One of the most powerful men of his time in Iceland and twice Lawspeaker, Snorri was killed on 23 September 1241 by one of his rivals, with the consent of the Norwegian king who was angry with Snorri for resisting his attempts to annex Iceland. Davíd Oddsson, former Prime Minister of Iceland, wrote the Foreword to Líndal’s book, while it was edited by RNH Academic Director Hannes H. Gissurarson, Professor Emeritus of Politics at the University of Iceland. It has an English Summary.

On the occasion of the publication of Líndal’s book, The Icelandic Literary Society, jointly with the Institute of Medieval Studies at the University of Iceland, the Institute of Law at the University of Iceland, and RSE, the Research Centre for Social and Economic Affairs,  held a colloquium at Edda, the house for the ancient Icelandic manuscripts on the University of Iceland campus, on 23 September 2025. Two foreign speakers discussed the contributions of Snorri Sturluson and Sigurdur Líndal to political and legal theory. Ditlev Tamm, Professor Emeritus of Law at the University of Copenhagen, described the old Nordic legal tradition of which Líndal had written much, and pointed out similarities between it and the traditions in many other European countries, for example Hungary. One important principle in that tradition was Quod omnes tangit ab omnibus approbetur (what touches all must be approved of by all) which the American revolutionaries in 1776 interpreted as: no taxation without representation. The question was however how much of the Nordic tradition was really from the Middle Ages, and how much was constructed under the influence of romantic nationalism in the nineteenth century.

Dr. Tom G. Palmer, the International Secretary of Atlas Network, to which almost 600 think tanks around the world belong, also discussed the significance of the principle Quod omnes tangit ab omnibus approbetur, which was, he argued, one of the most important pillars of modern democracy. It was given a pithy form, he said, in the Polish-Lithuanian Republic of Nobles, Nic o nas bez nas (Nothing about us, Without Us). Palmer also mentioned the reflections on politics by Cicero in his book On Duty which showed, he suggested, some striking similarities with the famous speech by the Icelandic farmer Einar of Thverá in Snorri Sturluson’s Heimskringla, where Einar points out that kings turn out differently, some well and some badly, so it was necessary to constrain their power, especially their power to tax and to engage in warfare.

Gudlaugur Thór Thórdarson, fmr. Foreign Minister, Ólafur Ragnar Grímsson, fmr. President of Iceland, and Prof. Hannes H. Gissurarson at the reception following the meeting.

A lively discussion followed the two papers. Lilja Alfredsdóttir, former Minister of Education, recalled the description by Tacitus in Germania about the self-government of the German tribes which seemed very similar to the system of the Icelandic Commonwealth. Ólafur Ragnar Grímsson, the former President of Iceland, emphasised the Germanic heritage of the Nordic and Anglo-Saxon nations which had been particularly relevant in Snorri Sturluson’s time when it had come into conflict with the attempts by the Norwegian kings to establish centralised power, under the influence of ideas from the south of Europe. This Nordic and Anglo-Saxon heritage had again become relevant in our time, Grímsson said, when attempts were being made to establish centralised power in Brussels. Gudni Ágústsson, former Minister of Agriculture, pointed out that Snorri Sturluson had been brought up in the famous site of learning Oddi, and that perhaps he had something to do with the writing of Njal’s Saga, in Gudni’s opinion the best Icelandic saga. Hannes H. Gissurarson who led the discussion responded that Snorri had written Egil’s Saga which was very anti-royalist in spirit, but that possibly his nephew, the historian Sturla Thordarson, had written Njal’s Saga which was not at all hostile to royalty. The difference between Snorri and Sturla had been that Snorri wanted to maintain the independence of Iceland, which she had enjoyed for three centuries, whereas Sturla was very much the king’s man.

The meeting hall at Edda was packed. The meeting was chaired by Gardar Gíslason, former Supreme Court Justice, whereas the publication of Líndal’s book was supported by RSE, the Icelandic Centre for Social and Economic Research. After the meeting, RSE hosted a reception at the premises, and in the evening it invited the speakers and organisers of the event to dinner. From left: Haraldur Bernhardsson, Director of the University of Iceland Institute of Medieval Studies, María Jóhannsdóttir, widow of Prof. Sigurdur Líndal, Prof. Ditlev Tamm, Prof. Anna Agnarsdóttir, Sigurgeir Orri Sigurgeirsson, who designed the book, Elisa Eyvindsdóttir, editor of Úlfljótur, Prof. Hannes H. Gissurarson, Prof. Ragnar Árnason, Dr. Tom G. Palmer, Gardar Gíslason, fmr. Supreme Court Justice, and Salka Sigmarsdóttir, editor of Úlfljótur.

The day before the colloquium, Professor Hannes H. Gissurarson published an article in Morgunbladid, Our Contemporary, Snorri Sturluson, where he argued that Snorri’s ideas were still relevant: government by consent, the right of rebellion (now interpreted as the right regularly to vote those in power out of office), no taxation without representation and a foreign policy that the Icelandic nation should be the friend of all, but the subject of none.

John Locke

RNH Academic Director Hannes H. Gissurarson, Professor Emeritus of Politics at the University of Iceland, was interviewed in Gisli Freyr Valdorsson’s popular podcast on Wednesday 27 August 2025. They discussed how classical liberalism could be defined and defended. Gissurarson pointed out that this was traditionally regarded as a set of political ideas developed by John Locke, David Hume, and Adam Smith, but he added that in fact the roots of classical liberalism were much older, derived from the old Germanic ideas of government by consent and right of rebellion, described by Snorri Sturluson in Heimskringla. Government provided three indispensable services, to keep law and order, to defend people against internal and external threats, and to ensure a decent life for those unable to provide for themselves, in other words a safety net. Probably government only needed about 15 per cent of GDP, Gross Domestic Product, to finance the provision of these three kinds of services. Gissurarson recalled the old adage, No taxation without representation. This implied, for example, that corporations should not pay taxes because they had no right to vote. Again, taxes should only paid on income, either as a value-added tax or as a flat personal income tax. It was unfair to tax income from capital gains because then those who had saved were punished whereas those who had consumed all their income were spared and thus rewarded. It was double taxation.

Gissurarson recalled the story of King Eric of Pomerania. He had in 1429 introduced the Sound Dues on ships crossing the Sound between Denmark and Sweden. Later, when he had been deposed, he became a pirate on Gotland, an island in the Baltic Sea. The interesting question was whether there was any moral difference between the income he exacted as king from ships crossing the Sound and the income he derived as pirate from robbing ships crossing the Baltic. Was the former not taxation without representation and therefore theft by taxation, and the latter plain and simple theft? Gissurarson also recalled that the well-known philosopher G. E. M. Anscombe had taught that the main task of political philosophy was to distinguish the state from the mafia, both entities promising protection for a fee.

Gissurarson said that the main difference between economic liberalism and socialism was shown in their approaches to poverty. The liberals sought to enable people to get out of poverty, whereas the socialists wanted to help people remain poor, by making poverty more tolerable. What was essential for the liberals was help to self-help, making people independent and prosperous. Gissurarson added that the two main arguments for private property were that what everybody owned, nobody cared for, and that good fences made good neighbours. He was in favour of private property rights to natural resources, but the private property right which was most important was the right people had in their own persons, their abilities and skills.