Net Neutrality debate has surged in India in the last couple of days and it pretty much went as I expected: there was no debate. Public will run to defend anything if it is marketed as “neutral”. Doesn’t matter if they fully understand the ramifications of it. Maybe I should market my position as being neutral too. Maybe I should call it Market Neutrality. But garnering blind supporters is hardly my goal here. So if you don't have time, I ask you to go over to Save The Internet site and blindly send the mail to TRAI. After all who can be against something titled “Net Neutrality”.
With the Court Systems failing all over the world the topic of Jurisprudence has become important. While people can always talk about reform, this widespread nature of the problem indicates to something being structurally wrong with our justice systems. Have you wondered:
Does the RBI governor Raghuram Rajan understand interest rates? Is his policy of keeping the interest rates high and fixed helping the economy? How and why should you care about the rate of interest and what RBI does?
If this questions interest you then you should read this essay of mine:
Recently Supreme Court has ordered the release of all the undertrials who have already spent more than half of their maximum supposed sentences in jail. This has sparked the debate of “guilty until proven innocent” in India. This is something the libertarians have been pointing out about the modern “justice” systems all over the world. It is unethical to kidnap someone and keep them in captivity until you have established that they are a threat to others in society. Police arrests whomever they want and they are almost assured that the person will not be released for a long time. The police is, in a sense, the real judges of our justice system. The laws implemented by the police is therefore their own law. It is neither the laws of the legislators nor is it the law as interpreted by the justice system. And one can see this aspect of the police in their modus operandi, where they decide to arrest someone first and then think as many legislative laws as they can think to apply to the case. More the number of IPC sections they can apply, more complex is the acquittal procedure. This kind of Justice system marches towards what can now be seen in the United Police States of America. To have a monopoly over law is to be lawless yourself, which is what the police ultimately become.
“Oh so you are okay with public nudity then?”
This seems to be a standard question “Kiss of love” activists are being bombarded with. Even though the question appears ridiculous to them, they are unable to give a satisfactory answer to it. My aim with this write up is to provide an answer to that question and to outline tactics to achieve a more liberal society.
We welcome you to The Institute of Austrian Economics to learn economics that won't be taught to you anywhere not even in your schools and colleges.
Facebook Page: http://www.facebook.com/TheInstituteofAustrianEconomics
So you spend a lot of time debating a friend, answering all his questions on private law and rebutting certain myths about law. You are able to connect most problems in our society with lack of order because of monopolized law (not despite it). Once he has thoroughly exhausted all his arguments and you are sure the discussion is coming to an end he asks a near impossible question which nearly all libertarians dread: So what is the solution?
The failure to answer this question is unfortunately a result of short-sightedness. Libertarians must ask themselves that if private law is a much better way of providing protection then why does it not exist today?