Loading...
 

Indian Libertarians

Life, Liberty and Property

Government adores only “virgin women”?

iljaimine Sunday June 9, 2013

 

In my previous commentary, I commented about how an amoral entity called ‘Government masquerades morality.’ Now, here is another episode where the Madhya Pradesh State-Government ‘legally exploits the sexual life of tribal women’ in order to justify its marriage related ponzi-scheme.

It is, indeed, disgruntling to learn that there is zero liberty in India. Thanks to Fascism in India and the imbecilic voters. This should also be noted that the ‘structurality of Indian politics is not only patriarchal but also misogynic.’  Once again the Indian state as well as the Indian society fails to realize with their real eyes that proving virginity is a real lie. It is real lie, according to me, because the rational choice as well as privacy of an individual are highly lowballed upon. The so-called peer pressure running over virginity is an instrument of the Indian society. Nonetheless, every individual is free to naturally pursue eudemonia in its own way. The so-called moral interventionism by the Indian state, in real sense, is highly amoral.

Forcing tribal women for the virginity tests reflects the misogynic character of the Government. It also wastes tax money. It is ‘not up to the government to decide about sexual privacy of an individual.’ It is a ‘great injustice’ conducted by the government for legally exploiting the tribal women for its ponzi-scheme. Where will the non-virgin tribal woman go, if she fails the test? It is bureaucratically asserted that she will be not blessed with the government sponsored ponzi-scheme. If this is the case, then why not free all the tribal women from its matrix and permit individuals to pursue their own life, liberty and dignity on their own and for their own? This again justifies that ‘Government is an unnecessary guest in the society.’ No society can prosper without eccentricism of individualism. No doubt to learn that government is against rugged individualism as well as methodological individualism. I don’t think that this scenario will be repeated in the structurality of free market catallaxy, and unfortunately Indians will be hailing State or Statism, even after observing this commentary, because their conscience have been inured only with positive liberalism

 

Masquerading Morality.

iljaimine Saturday June 8, 2013
It is ‘an axiomatic fact to note that the system of Government is not only filled with contradictions but also with the entities masquerading morality.’ No doubt to also note that the “State is a political association of violence, monopoly, taxation and threat, during which the Government pretends to act as a moralist agent.” It dictates so-called moral principles, in the name of “public welfare” or “common good”, but ‘extremely fails’ to comprehend that “moralism is a subjective phenomena”. It is wastage of time and energy to debate with the Statists as well as with the State, on the subject of ethics or morality, because they are - basically – ‘unaware of this objective fact that morality is not an objective good.’ Thence, ‘the Government does great injustice by coercing morality in the society.’ Unfortunately, there are imbeciles or mobs ‘blindly’ accepting such so-called moral dictations from the Government without questioning it. I am also conscious that “Government abhors Inquisitivism.”

Anyways,

From the above comprehension, I intend to shortly comment about the imbecilic political system of India condemning as well as banning “dance bars” in Mumbai for the sake of social morality.

Let us, first, have a quick review about it.

Dance bar is a term used in India to refer to bars in which adult entertainment in the form of dances by relatively well-covered women are performed for male patrons in exchange for cash.

The Government, in the regional state of Maharashtra, banned it by passing Bombay Police (Amendment) Act in August 2005. The Government believes that dance bars attract amorality, as it is highly vulnerable to prostitution and activities. What the Government fails to learn that these few women at dance bars resorting to prostitution acted in their own rational choice. I think I am also tired of relearning a contemporary fact that “Government is against rational choice as well as voluntary activities” too.

Well,

Bar dancing in India, markedly differs from erotic dancing and nightclub dance in the Western world and some parts of the Eastern world and even parts of India. In a way, it is more similar to bellydancing performed as entertainment.

The dancers, known as bar girls, remain significantly clothed throughout the performance, showing at most some midriff, part of the back, and bare arms. Therefore, the erotic aspect of bar dancing is mostly achieved through suggestion. In Maharashtra, bar dancer attire is often ethnic Indian (sari or lehenga-choli), whereas in some other places, such as Bangalore, it may include Western garb. The bar dances are often compared to mujras, wherein women would dance to live-classicalIndian music, traditionally performed by tawaif (courtesans) during the Mughal era.

Nevertheless,

I don’t think that the cronyistic Government will ban or intervene into the sector of Bollywood industry, which periodically televises few imbecilic actresses provocatively dancing, because it pays highest taxes to the treasuries of the Government.

Read this true story of a former dance bar girl who has now turned into a prostitute. She is highly disgruntled with the imbecility of the political system as well as with the police officials for sexually and conscientally exploiting her body.

The apoplithorismophobic Government is failing to counter inflation. Inflation is the result of its socialistic monetary policies. If few dance bar women resort to prostitution in order to struggle inflation, then what makes the government to invade into their rational lives? When the government itself has failed to shell out women security at societal level, then why it is acting as a moral agent by pretending to secure women against so-called social ills? The Government is not in the stage to even legalize prostitution, then why it is being unjust to few rational women who are willing to work in the so-called amoral vocations?

Some Kritarchists seem to make sense, but unfortunately the Government seems to be not.

Prostitutes, in my view, are better than the Politicians because the prostitutes happen to sell only their body but politicians impudently sell their soul. Prostitutes are still better than Politicians, because prostitutes respect individual sovereignty. This cannot be seen in the case of Politicians. Nonetheless, prostitutes are still better because they adore rugged individualism, eccentric individualism and methodological individualism. I can also assure all those prostitutes out there that they can prosper more in the structural environment of free market catallaxy.

 

An excuse for more democratic-socialism.

iljaimine Wednesday June 5, 2013
The state of the Indian economy is ‘blindly glued’ with the parameters of a “peripheral nation”. It is absurd to hail over a ‘factual lie’ propositioning that “India is a semi-peripheral nation heading towards the status of a core nation.” India cannot be a ‘super-powerful nation’ because there is extreme surplus of hobbesianism.

This is not an essay, but a short critical commentary/insight, on the article essayed by Arun Maira. He is the member of Planning Commission of India. His article appeared in the Mint newspaper arguing about the ‘reforms in labour laws’ of India. Before my commentary, I would like you to first read his article.

Commentary:

There ‘cannot be decent jobs or good jobs’, in India, I think, because the ‘manufacturing sector is highly dependent upon the political decisions.’ The Indian Government is suffering from Apoplithorismophobia. High interest rates, tight liquidity and red-tapism, I believe, are the root causes of all economic ills in India. It is legitimate to note that there is “jobless growth” in Indian economy. It is a delusion to learn that the GDP numbers are impressive lately.

Asking the Indian Government to create more jobs is like asking a goat about the favourite abattoir of it. As long as the Indian State continues to intervene in the dynamics of Economy, there will be no growth. The more the Indian economy abhors free market catallaxy, the more it will face dystopia. The need of the hour is to limit the interventionism done by the Indian Government. I do not think that India is ‘immediately ready’ for the economical execution of Rothbardianism.

All those talks about growth, development or new manufacturing policy are just ‘political conspiracies’. New Manufacturing Policy is a science of normative economics and it cannot perfectly succeed because of the nepotistic behaviour in the matrix of Indian economy.

India is a “dependent economy”. Therefore, CAD (Current Account Deficit) is systematically lynching the economy of India. The service sector spurs certain employments. The manufacturing sector can greatly boost employment opportunities...only when there are zero taxations and low interests rates. The Indian economy should denounce hobbesianic “human nature” and embrace “human action”, if it really cares for “We, the People of India”.

Other than large corporations, the SME’s (Small Medium enterprises) can sustain growth only when the banking sectors easily permit sound credit to them. 70% of the entities in banking sector are publicly owned and this is not a good deal to begin with. Isn’t it?

The labour laws should be subjected to the market. The reformation about it can spark only when the ‘business environment in India is made market-friendly and not political-friendly’. The labour laws are badly administered, in India, because the democratic-socialism has tremendously failed to purify it. The labour laws should be determined between employers and employees, and it is not accurate for the Indian State to poke in its nose. Enunciating social security measures in it is nothing but a ponzi-scheme. The reformation system of ‘labour laws should structurally function according to the market competition and not as per the political connection.’

 

 

Preamble to the Indian Constitution is, axiomatically, Hobbesian.

iljaimine Monday June 3, 2013
The Preamble, or the formal Introduction, to the Indian Constitution, in my view, is ‘not only Hobbesian in its character but also Cretinistic’.  It is not only the imbecilic foundation of “lawyer’s paradise” but also the reliable source of proficient contradictions. Believe it or not. You are free to disbelieve it, but not free from the consequences of disbelieving it.

Let us first have a look at the ‘Preamble to the Indian Constitution’:

_

WE, THE PEOPLE OF INDIA, having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a SOVEREIGN SOCIALIST SECULAR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC and to secure to all its citizens:

JUSTICE, social, economic and political;

LIBERTY, of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship;

EQUALITY of status and of opportunity;

and to promote among them all

FRATERNITY assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the Nation;

IN OUR CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY this twenty-sixth day of November, 1949, DO HEREBY ADOPT, ENACT AND GIVE TO OURSELVES THIS CONSTITUTION.

_

Being one of the free-thinkers, who are generally abhorred in ‘democratic’ India, I have furnished below few critical arguments in a very abstract proforma confirming the assertions that I made in the beginning of this essay.

The very first line of the Preamble states,

WE, THE PEOPLE OF INDIA, having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a SOVEREIGN SOCIALIST SECULAR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC and to secure to all its citizens:

I think this proposition is axiomatic in the context of Hobbesian thought. It begins with, “We, the People of India”. The term “WE” is actually a facet of majoritarianism, and it can only denote Mobocracy. No doubt to point out that ‘Mobocracy is the real name of Democracy’ where individualism is only laughed upon. I will be highly obliged to know as to how the founders of Indian Constitution seeked consent, from the Indian people, in this direction, calling for the “We, the People of India having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a sovereign, socialist, secular, democratic and republic”, or derived to this ratiocination? On what grounds, the founders also derived to this consciousness? What made them to confidently impose all these? What’s the political conspiracy behind it? Anyways, I wish they had enlisted ~~#0000ff:Economist B. R. Shenoy justify;" >It is, indeed, strange to learn that the professionally educated founders of Indian Constitution undermined the power of rugged individualism and #0000ff:methodological individualism justify;" >To deal further, I think even God will gibe with me that the founders committed a great injustice by not counting in the power of ‘Individualism over Mobocracy’. The first line of the Preamble also states that ‘India is Sovereign’. Do you really think so that it is? I think the ‘preamble is not subjected to constitutional review’, therefore, sovereignty sounds as a joke in today’s globalized era. Sovereignty is the health or soul of the State, and it amounts to the adequate establishment of Statism. When the Indian State is least concerned about Individuality, then how it is expected from it to treat Individual’s sovereignty with respect, liberty and right to private property? I believe that the mainstream picture of India is infected with Statism, because of various forms of tyrannical laws.

The Preamble, further, propositions few irrational terms like Socialist Secular Democratic Republic.

Socialism, I think, is all about corrupting the potency of Capitalism and free-market catallaxy. It believes in egalitarian distributionism of miseries and collective greed. Count ignorance too. Socialism, today, serves as a great source, or justification, for the Indian State to simply tax the “We, the People of India”. Taxation serving as a friend of India’s Socialism is pushing the economy of India towards the state of fiscal dystopia. Albeit there is the Government, but still the state of India’s economy is brutally in chaos. Like it or not. Despite of it, #0000ff:India is persistently poor justify;" >Now, secularism.

Secularism can also be about separation of government and religious institutions. The founders dreamt of equal respect or tolerance for all the religions in India, in the context of secularity. India is blessed with more than 10 religions in India; therefore, it is very utopianistic to think about equally respecting all the religious identities at the same time in the same place. I don’t know why the founders did not extend their so-called secular understandings and free choices to the religious communities to decide on their own about the identity of their rational polity? Had they did it, I don’t think so there wouldn’t be ‘cellular democracy’ in India today. Most people fail to also realize with their real eyes that secularism is highly impossible in India, because it limits the freedom and lives of the individuals. It is also not friendly to the idea of free market and open society. Layman does not understand that theological communism is highly endowed in the Abrahamic religious doctrines. Respecting or following any faith should be solely based on voluntary choice, and it is not legitimate for the Indian state to softly coerce secularism upon all the units. Isn’t it?  

Whereas,

Democracy, I think, is a form of political ideology believing in “far the people, off the people, buy the people”. Democracy, in India, is structured with parliamentary form. ‘The comfort of the parliamentarians depends upon the abundant supply of the voters.’ It does guarantee freedom of speech, movements, etc. but isn’t it paradoxical to note that in a so-called democratic nation like India the parliamentarians have to constantly remind the Indian public about freedom or democracy? This has helped me to conclude that ‘there is no democracy in India’. Let us also have a look at #0000ff:UIDAI card justify;" >The Indian State has impudently insulted the Preamble to the Indian Constitution through this establishment. From 1947 to 1991, the social democracy screwed the lives of “We, the People of India”, and the so-called neo-liberal steps undertaken in the year 1991 liberalized the economy of India but still it is not complete liberalization because the Indian State continues to control the market, regularly intervenes in it, executes Keynesian policies, drafts heavy amount of red-tapism, dismisses anarcho-capitalism debate, constitutes more tax laws, seditious laws or defamatory laws and just preaches democracy. I hope you know that democracy is all about #0000ff:electing the best oppressor justify;" >Anyways, republicanism, in India, is a political joke.

I think one statement is quite enough to holistically prove you that republicanism in India do not condemns Monarchism but instead embraces it. “The Gandhi dynasty, since 1947,” is evident enough to ponder whether the Indian polity is obsessed with republic nation-state or monarchic nation-state. The so-called four estates of democracy in India aren’t serving a splendid purpose either. I gibe that the Indian polity does not seek permission from the Queen of England for its so-called sovereign matters, but the whole political setup of India is just simply “copy-pasted from the #0000ff:political system of colonialist British~~”. Government of India Act, 1935; is the basic source for my argument.  

Then, the Preamble talks about:

JUSTICE, social, economic and political;

LIBERTY, of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship;

EQUALITY of status and of opportunity;

and to promote among them all

FRATERNITY assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the Nation;

IN OUR CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY this twenty-sixth day of November, 1949, DO HEREBY ADOPT, ENACT AND GIVE TO OURSELVES THIS CONSTITUTION.

How can there be justice, in the dimensions of social, economic and political, when the Indian State possesses Hobbesian attitude? The Indian State has failed to define justice to “We, the People of India”. However, it should be also noted that around 14,00,000 cases are pending for the verdicts in Socialist India. As long as the Indian Government continues to bureaucratically take the decisions, adhocracy will perfectly vanish. Justice is, however, infringed holistically; when “We, the People of India” are forced to obey the laws or dictated to pay the taxes. Lot more other red-zones, in the context of justice, can be pointed out.

By the way; if liberty means everything, as per the Preamble to the Indian Constitution, then why don’t I have the right to think freely or express openly what the Indian Government and its consumer “We, the People of India” - peculiarly - doesn’t want to hear? How can there be liberty in India when the mainstream model is obsessed only with Socialism? There can be no liberty in India, when the Indian State does not entertain itself with minarchial thoughts. I am not favouring minarchy here, but convincing the hypocritical nature of the Indian State which seems to possess a very poor IQ on the studies of Austrian economics, Rothbardianism and Anarcho-Capitalism.

Equality and Fraternity are, nevertheless, interconnected to each other. If the Indian State stands by its comprehension on egalitarianism then why it is not opportunistic to voluntarism? The Indian State, I believe, is not in the mood to treat anyone equally because the voices of the Individuals are not treated equally. In such a democratic-nation like India; why the Indian State has to remind the “We, the People of India” with fundamental rights or duties, when on the other hand it legislates few new rights without the consent of the people that systematically infringes upon the previous fundamental rights? Isn’t the structurality of fundamental rights a ponzi-scheme? May I know that why there is no fundamental right to voluntaryism, right to privacy, right to speedy justice, right to non-state interventionism, etc?

To now deal with fraternity, I think that the process of befriending should be solely based on mutual consent. I don’t think that the Indian State deserves any legitimate place to dictate about it. Fraternity, as per the definition immersed in the Preamble to the Indian Constitution, should not assume dignity of the Individual because there is no Individualism - in India - due to extreme Statism. This is cheating. The Indian State should hamper preaching what it cannot practise. The real Fraternity can be beholden in India only when the Indian State is abolished so that the imposed order is overtaken by the spontaneous order where all the Individuals benefit from each other in the contexts of justice, liberty and equality.

Even the father of Indian Constitution Dr. B Ambedkar predicted, whilst drafting the Constitution, that “However much you may deny powers to the Centre, it is difficult to prevent the Centre from becoming strong. Conditions in the modern world are such that centralisation of powers is inevitable.” With this, I expect, “We, the People of India”, to grasp that the ‘Preamble is a conspiracy or a ponzi-scheme’. There can be no true freedom, as long as the State continues to exist in our society. The best government, I think, is the self-government. When people can conscientally govern their own soul, then there is certainly no need of any Constitution, State and Government in the society. That’s the new inception of a perfect civilization.

 

Inflation to come under greater control in coming months: Manmohan Singh

srinivas.chakravarti Saturday June 1, 2013

Friday, May 31, 2013, 15:48 IST | Place: On board PM's aircraft | Agency: PTI

The RBI is scheduled to announce its mid-quarter policy review on June 17; in its last review, the RBI had cut the key interest rates by 0.25 %.

Inflation will come under greater control in the coming months and will provide greater space to the Reserve Bank to pursue pro-growth policies, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said on Friday. (emphasis mine)

 

"In the coming months, you will see inflation coming under greater control and the space for growth promoting activities also increasing," he told reporters on his way back from his two nation tour of Japan and Thailand.

 

The Prime Minister was asked whether in the growth versus inflation dynamics RBI has been left behind since Finance Minister P Chidambaram has made it clear that he would like to walk alone if the RBI does not listen.

 

"Monetary policy of the country is decided by the RBI and I respect the judgement of RBI. But this is also an evolving process. As we get control over inflation, there is more space available to pursue pro-growth policies," he said.

 

Link to full article

 

Comment: The RBI and the government have been talking about controlling inflation ie. price rise for many months now. They fear that expanding the monetary base too quickly will lead to inflation ie. price rise. If that is the case, then should not the RBI accept the fact that the price rises in the last 18 months are due to the rapid monetary expansion policies pursued?

 

If you ask the citizen on the street, the view is that the government is not doing enough to contain inflation. How can govt contain inflation, when they are the reason for it? RBI is the sole producer, controller and regulator of all money in India and one their goals are to provide a stable Rupee. Anyone following the markets on an irregular basis  will tell you that the Rupee has been extremely volatile in the last four years.

 

Many view this as 'structural problem' in the economy, by which the actually mean supply side issues! It amazes me, that Inda has supply side issues, considering that there is NO shortage of food on store shelves. It is true that govt policy has led to a massive wastage of food produce and inefficient distribution, however we will still see no shortage of supply. Hence, we can say the root cause of price rise is a not supply problem.

 

The Indian citizen does not understand basic economics, much like the citizen in the USA or Germany. By this, I do not mean that he/she is completely ignorant of reality; but unable to understand economic phenomena clearly.

 

Since this post is about inflaton, price rise and monetary policy, please read about inflaton and price rise as viewed by the Austrian school of economics.

 

Inflation by Ludwig Von Mises

 

Defining Inflation by Frank Shostak

 

Indian Socialism abhors Indian stomachs?

iljaimine Wednesday May 29, 2013

 

The political comfort of the Indian government, I think, highly depends upon the control, manipulation, regulation and supply of food grains. The contemporary socioeconomic system of so-called democratic India is not only a conspiracy, in my view, but is also a legal scam. Even, today, many Indians continue to literally invest their ‘imbecilic conscience’ in the democratic structures of India. Most of them fail to respectively ‘realize with their real eyes’ that their souls have been coerced into the matrix of hobbesian social contract. The Constitution of India is one of the best examples of Hobbesianism in India. Isn’t it?

In my next essay, I am going to attack the ‘Preamble to the Indian Constitution’. In this essay, I attempt to critically inform you about the mismanagement and institutional ignorance which are impudently immersed in the supply chain of food grains. The food-supply, in India, is an unperceived corruption scandal (?). If economically calculated and journalistically exposed, the official data of scam can run up to Rs. 50,000crore and more. Tried imaging about unofficial data? Anyways, the socialistic Indian civil society, generally against the concept of free market catallaxy, is collectively amoral and conscientally stupid. They have tremendously failed to acknowledge a very basic political proposition about Democratic Socialism and that is “the one who controls the food supply, rules over the stomachs”. The Indian Government has constitutionally gifted them Democratic Socialism to blindly worship upon, so that the irrational mobs continue to busily hail Statism and abhor liberty, at the very first sight. And when the mobs hail Statism, the Indian Government succeeds in its esoteric mission of controlling or fooling the population. This is how the political system of any nation, irrespective of ideological establishment, structurally functions. Am I right?

I have not understood that why the Indian political system, on one hand, have to clamor about entrepreneurial freedom and on the other hand have to impose stringent regulations or legal control on the exports and imports? Socialism and Communism are cousin bastard kids of their father called State, according to me. Communist China comparatively enjoys more rating than Socialist India, when talked about a specific economic parameter i.e. business friendly environment.

According to some report by the Food Navigator-Asia: India restricts wheat exports as the grain is a major component of the public distribution system, that lets lot of the lower and middle classes buy food grains and essential food products cheaply. Removal of controls was long lobbied for by economists and protested equally by politicians, since a shortage could give rise to inflation and impact a major chunk of the voter demographic. This proposal is significant as buyers, even after the 2009, have been reluctant to enter into deals with Indian exporters, given the potential for exports to be suspended by the government on short notice on the account of inflation. 

I think that the Indian government does not only restrict the “wheat exports”, albeit some quantitative restrictions on export have been liberated, but still continues to also control the food grains in order to console its political agenda(s), electoral gains and success of some food programmes, so as to appease the imbecilic public. Referencing some explanations from Mr. Vivek Kaul in his online report published at firstpost; I think that there is a ‘great interventionism’, by the Indian Government, in the agricultural market. Through an institute called Food Corporation of India (FCI), the political system of India directly and through other state government affiliates procures rice and wheat from farmers at the minimum support price (MSP) as set by the government. These food grains are then distributed by the government through the various programmes that it runs, using the ‘public distribution system’ which ‘is highly fragile and crooked’. As per the so-called current norms, FCI buys all the rice and wheat that farmers bring to it. Holistically speaking, I think that this interventionism have created a ‘splendid predicament’ for the Indian economy.

As per the prevailing norms the government is supposed to sustain a total food grain stock of 31.9 million tonnes every year. But the actual amount of food grain stock is much higher than this number. As per a report titled Buffer Stocking Policy in Wake of NFSB (National Food Securities Bill) authored by Ashok Gulati and Surbhi Jain of the Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices (CACP) it critically points out, “The country is currently loaded with large stocks. For example, on 1 July, 2012, it had 80.2 million tonnes, and is likely to have similar or even higher amount this year, despite emerging as the largest exporter of rice (around 10 million tonnes in calendar year 2012) and exporting about 5.6 million tonnes of wheat in fiscal year 2012-13.”

The food grain stock as on 1 April, 2013, stood at 59.8 million tonnes against the norm of 21.2 million tonnes. The plight is usually expected to continue even after the current wheat procurement season ends. The government procures more than 90% of the wheat, during the summer seasons. What is intriguing, nevertheless, is that the wheat procurement has been way less than what was originally projected. “In 2013-14, the procurement of wheat was initially estimated to be 44 million tonnes by the government after due consultation with state governments, before the procurement season began in March-April, 2013. Gradually, it was realized by the end of April that it may not touch 44 million tonnes, but stop at around 40 million tonnes. With each week passing in May 2013, the estimate is being reduced and by the middle of May, it was being realized that total procurement of wheat may not cross 32 million tonnes. Such a drop in procurement estimate from 44 million tonnes to 32 million tonnes within less than two months is a cause of concern, and indicates the challenges in honoring the commitments under NFSB,” the report points out. The Indian Government seems to accumulate the food stocks for its upcoming food security bill which when passed constitutionally assures “right to food” as a funda-mental right to the Indian citizens. This, overall, is an example to note that socialism is a ponzi-scheme.

What is paradoxical is that the Indian government does not even accommodate healthy space to stock all the food grain that it has been buying. The total storage capacity available is around 71.9 million tonnes. What this means is that more than 10 million tonnes of food grain will be rotting out there in the open. Thus, the inflation. The apoplithorismophobic Indian government manages the inflation to fool the apolitical population of India. Seems legit?

As a recent report brought out by the Comptroller and the Auditor (CAG) General of India pointed out “The total food grains stock in the Central Pool recorded an increase of 45.8 million tonnes between 2006-07 and 2011-12.” This has meant that the amount of food grain available in the open market has gone down and leading to higher prices. It has also more or less killed the private trading in the agricultural sector. The government has excess stocks of around 30-40 million tonnes of food grain with an economic cost of Rs 70,000-92,000crores. More than 10 million tonnes of this grain is rotting in the open i.e. around Rs 20,000crores of tax payers money is going waste. And this is a government which is struggling to control its burgeoning expenditure. Isn't it?

As the CACP report points out “It is creditable that India is currently in a state of ‘plenty’ but holding excessive stocks in godowns, which serve no worthwhile purpose, begs the question of economic efficiency in public expenditure. It will be much rational policy choice to liquidate these “excessive” stocks. The money, i.e., around Rs 80,000 crore under the most likely scenario, would certainly come in handy in the current times of high fiscal deficit and the increased availability of wheat and rice in the markets would rein in high food inflation, especially cereal inflation.”

Last but not least, the ‘political system of India is neither people friendly nor food friendly’. Isn't it? Therefore, I ratiocinate that the Indian Government is the problem to all our solutions.

 

Hoi polloi are more perilous than dangerous animals.

iljaimine Tuesday May 21, 2013

 

I am NOT a sane individual, as per the standards commonly defined by the society. The society acknowledges itself as a “sane unit”, because it monopolistically defines and enlists love, compassion and the people. They, collectively, possess a view believing that “individualism is not a necessary philosophy” but philanthropy is. I am NOT mixing the idea of individuality with misanthropy here, but realizing a common generalization commonly made against the individualism by the imbecilic members of the society. According to the ‘esoteric communication’ within society, “normalcy is the utmost objective”. It propositions that “be normal and the people shall accept you. Be sane, and the society will allow you to ‘lead’ them.”

The moment “an individual tries to do something spontaneously different” than just blindly following the imposed order; the society punishes this ‘eccentric individualist’. The punishments authored out to this “rugged individualist” by the society are rationally considered to be legitimate, because the rules of mobocracy have been always or ‘conventionally’ right. They clamor further by saying that, ‘’voice of the people is the voice of the god.” The collectivization by the society is supposed to be moral, whereas individualization by an individual should be highly considered as amoral; because an individual is a selfish creature, whereas society is an altruist creature. This is how the society succeeds in its social process of mobilization. ‘Mobilization’, I think, is nothing but ‘monopolization’. Anything against the monopoly is an act of treason. If an individual economically dares to valiantly prosper, then it is expected that the individuals sooner resort to philanthropic actions. Not siding with philanthropism is widely considered to be an act of inhumanism. Society deontologically states that it is the moral duty of any individual to first serve the society that s/he lives in. It coercively argues, “There is this social contract that all individuals have to comply for the greater good of all commons.”

The behavioral charters regarding marriage, dowry, casteism, enterprising and laws have to be in consistence with the society. Anything conducted outside this ambit consequentially results to boycotting and insulting of the individual. If I am told to illustrate my point then I would cite the example of the system of marriage in our society. I believe that the proponents of free love are highly taunted by the normal members of society for wisely challenging the conventional wisdom of society. Marriage is not a ‘legal rape’ or ‘permanent sexual contract’, according to the society. It is a sacred bonding made in heavens. And, when an individual is busily immersed with its beloved under this objective charter of “heavenly bonding” then it is still not in consistence with the society. This individual is then subjectively taunted for being Romeo. Isn't it? Therefore, it is now legitimate to also note that the people of this profoundly sick society have the definition(s) on love/relationships as well.

Hoi polloi - generally speaking - condemn the slogans like ‘profit over people’ or ‘politics over people’, because the slogans are inhumane. Humanism, according to me, is nothing but soft form of Communism. People, generally, fail to realize my comprehension on humanism with their real eyes. They conclude my realization as a bunch of real lies. They claim themselves to be “collectively conscious human beings”, which in my view is a highly unscientific term. Their support to humanism is considered to be enlightening activities. And when I validly question their humanism, they are then very quick to call me a “satanic agent”. I fail to understand that why such enlightened people claiming to be humanist have to insult my inquisitive mind during the debatable confrontations?

 

Enunciating “people over politics” and “people over profit” sounds very great, but the idea is very impractical. The humanists highly fail to understand that “Man is an individual naturally blessed with political thinking and economic rationalism”. Going against the human nature of a Man is as disastrous as going against the sun-rays emitted out by Sun. One cannot hide Sun, Moon and Truth for too long. People might comfort their conscience by going against this natural truth, but they are all dead in the long-run. Here, I do not intent to accommodate hobbesian nature of a human because it is highly imbecilic in theories as well as in practice  The only prosperous human being is the one who executes voluntary understanding and not coercive contracts. The society undervalues the spirit of collusiveness.

I also do not think that the spiritualism of profiteering should be condemned, because profits persuade an individual to grow more. This prosperity comes out of production. More the production, the greater is the investment. Greater is the investment, greater the employment opportunities are. But, unfortunately, people abhor profits on moral grounds. They also hate money. They post around by saying that “the only thing we cannot eat is money”. I think they have failed to critically understand that ‘money is a financial commodity’. It is purely a non-living being. It is the best medium of exchange ever invented. Money is not the root cause of all social evils, I think. The problem is with the supply side of it. Nevertheless, centralization and fiatization of money too can be enlisted in my argument. Humanists fail to understand that collectivization and monopolization of money-supply leads to great depressions. Post-depression, the humanists are out on the streets shouting for “power to the people”. Even here; I think that they fail to politically understand that clamoring for “power to the people” indirectly stands for “power to the State” in reality. Neither people nor state should be given power, because they both tend to misuse it. The real power actually resides in all of us. This potency is Methodological Individualism. I think all the individuals can break the fiscal matrix by studying Rothbardianism, Austrian Economics and Anarcho-Capitalism philosophy, and conceptualize a new consciousness for the benefit of mankind. Through voluntary exchanges, free trade and free market catallaxy, all the individuals I believe can live happily.

The society, today, irrationally blames “free market capitalism”. I can rationally understand their irrationality, but I don’t think “free market capitalism” should be abhorred because it has not been practiced yet. Free market capitalism; first of all, do not assents the establishment of the Government. Before ‘crony capitalism’ of today, the society observed Mercantilism. Therefore, “blaming Capitalism for the crisis is like blaming God for begetting women” in our society. Isn't it? Government is actually responsible for producing public corruption, business monopoly, censorship laws, ponzi welfare-schemes, taxation, etc. It suffers from Apoplithorismophobia. Humanists fail to understand that their humanism propaganda is/are generally against Individualism concept. I do not think that any individual will uphold the establishment of the State, because every individual is matured enough to govern its own conscience. I want all the individuals to mind their own business and their own money, than simply taxing (legally robbing) one another for a delusional agenda i.e. “commonness” propagated by the hoi polloi. I want the people to understand that social justice can prevail when they keep their money in their own pocket and allow me to keep my money in my own pocket. I do not think they will succeed in validly justifying me “Why I owe to them and why they owe to me?”.

 

The real hopeless victims of mental illness, I think, are to be found among those who appear to be normal or faking normalcy. Many of them pretend to be normal because they are so well adjusted to this mode of existence. Parents, among the hoi polloi, beat their kids for not speaking up, and when the teens rationally speak up then the same parents beat them for speaking up. Something is surely wrong there, right? Therefore, hoi polloi should commonly understand that security and free lunches comes at the cost of liberty. When the hoi polloi impudently surrender their liberty and individuality for more security and collectivism, actually deserve Nazism and nothing else.

Anyways, I am thankful to myself for not being normal.

 

The “non compos mentis” of India’s conventional media.

iljaimine Sunday May 19, 2013

 

It seems to me that an ordinary Indian who views or reads nothing is far better than millions of Indians who respectively watch and read TV news and newspapers daily. I do not intend to underestimate the circulations of information, bombarded by the Traditional Medias, with my comprehension, as stated above; but projecting a bitter reality to you about “the political economy of India’s Mainstream Medias” which are playing an ‘irrational circus show’ along with the ‘political jokers’ in it.

I used to be a TV trainee-journalist, in 2008-2009, interning with various renowned Indian Hindi News channels from where I learnt about manipulating the scripts, provoking the celebs unnecessarily for getting an “exclusive story”, stamping advertorial facts/news, etc. After experiencing TV journalism, I worked for English daily in 2010. They also lectured me about establishment theories, commercial-cum-editorial policies that newspapers have to rigorously comply with for profitably surviving in the market, etc. It would be certainly foolish to still believe that “media is the fourth estate of democracy”, because the owners of various mainstream media houses have transcended all the three estates of democracy such as legislative, judiciary and executive. The individual or the group which owns the media controls the minds of the people. Like it or not, the fact is that there are only “controlled beings”, as majority, in our so-called civil society. This civil society, in the political system, continues to hail ‘state capitalism’. Nevertheless, the controlled beings in a democratic nation are constantly told or sporadically revised about freedom, free press and liberty. The controlled beings have ‘highly failed to attain consciousness about the escalatory existence of censorship laws’, whilst the state capitalists appeasingly continue to constitutionally cite about freedom of speech when publicly challenged on primetime debate show. The Indian imbeciles or the controlled beings, despite of receiving education, are not able to cognitively decide whether they are the ‘matured victims of Stockholm syndrome’ or the ‘facilitators of propaganda models’. Nonetheless, I can ratiocinate that they are the ‘significant tools for the state-sponsored-psychedelia’. I am saying so, because they are inuredly attached with the ideas of left statism and right statism only. They also fail to ‘realize with their real eyes’ that the ‘leftism and rightism are one of the best propaganda models shelled out by the authoritarian Indian state to keep the imbeciles busy on issues pertaining to governance’, whilst the ‘Indian government continues to structure more tax laws or the Keynesian models’. This busy-ness is so great that every four-five years I am simply seeing a ‘higher voter turnout electing the best oppressor(s)’. Thanks to the ‘agenda-setting theory’ in ‘media studies subject, as it succinctly helps the democracy to softly exploit the potentials.

I do not support the argument that “democracy ensures free speech”, because many of the democratic nations have vociferously banned ‘Wiki Leaks’ for speaking out boldly, freely and openly. Isn't it? I want you to understand a simple fact that “what bludgeon is to a totalitarian state, propaganda is to a democracy”. Democracy is not only a conspiracy, but also a soft form of communism. The idea that the democracy of India is structurally functioning splendidly is, heretofore, a logical fallacy, because I am not seeing any Mainstream Media houses enticing the ‘voice of Libertarianism’ in its uses-and-gratification approaches. The Mainstream News panels or edit pages, in India, welcome either the voice of a leftist or a rightist only. Last but not least, in India, there is ‘no free market catallaxy propositioned for the political economy of Indian Media’. There have been considerable rise in the private ownerships of Media, in this age of globalization, but ‘the growth is however not blessed with Adhocracy’. Therefore, the state of India’s democracy is experiencing great fragility. There is politico-media complex, in the system, which employ during and after elections as well. The contemporary issues relating to “paid news” serve as an illustration for it. In fact, the political class is more honest than the media when it comes to ‘paid news’ during elections, judging by the fact that several poll candidates have owned up to this corrupt practice. There are also ‘incestuous relations between the political establishments and conventional media’. Media is a structural commodity of India’s politics. Isn’t it?

The Mainstream Medias, I think, are playing their so-called crucial role in exposing the apolitical practises of the politicians but it is disconcerting to note that the so-called mainstream media professionals have not dared to debate about “limiting the role of Indian government in India’s economy”. I do not think that they are in the matured position to accommodate Rothbardianism or Anarcho-Capitalism, in this context. The Indian populace should denounce imbecility and must try to embrace Anarcho-Capitalism, because the principles and ethics of it are purely based against coercion, war and authoritarianism. In the context of Media, I think Anarcho-Capitalism serves as a path-finder for the free press. It helps an Individual to liberate from the matrix of socialism or crony capitalism. Terrible amount of censorship laws, government interventionism, etc. are actually spoiling the character and morality of the Indian Medias. Anarcho-Capitalism theory of Media observes that people are more enough to find and judge good ideas from bad. The theory, doctored by me, also exposits that people are rational and their rational thoughts lead them to find out what are good and bad. The press should not restrict anything, because even a negative content may give knowledge and can make sound vigilantism in the information society. Therefore, there is no need of Government at all. The Government or the establishment is/are antithetical to freedom, liberty and free press.

The present psychological state of many Indians are massaged with ‘dependency theory’. Therefore, the populace do not easily welcome free thoughts, new economic ideas, rothbardianism, etc. Such kind of psychology is also responsible for enunciating the strong establishment of Hobbesianism in India. The psychology is, actually, suffering from cognitive dissonance and nothing else. That is why the Austrian economics thought is finding it very difficult to socially penetrate itself into the fiscal market. It is not easy to free the Indian imbeciles from the chains of servitude which they are radically revering. Let me tell you, as an Indian Media academician, that even the academic syllabus of various subjects in Media or Journalism courses are obsessed only with Marxist school, Frankfurt school and pro-establishment theories. You are free to figure out this.

The Indian Government is also succeeding, by “manufacturing the consent”, for enrolling people with UIDAI card. Thanks to the obedient slaves like Mainstream Media for not playing a crucial role by informing the public about invasion of the individual rights on this subject. However, the Mainstream Media might be critic of UIDAI card but still it does not fail to commercially circumvent the telecast of UIDAI public ads in its transmission. The consciously unconscious Mainstream Media is, systematically, programming knowledge control by indirectly assisting the India state to sponsor information asymmetry in the society.

Nevertheless, I have not understood that what important role the Indian Mainstream Media plays during the exit polling electionary phase? Let me not get started again on opinion polling. Anyways, the other crucial point I aspire to make is that why the Indian Mainstream Medias are so informatively poor on debating International relations or foreign policies? In fact, the TV news channels collectively go on “breaking news” spree and it monopolizes a specific news event. Isn't this centralization of news? Are the ‘breaking news’, here, controlled by the politicians too?

Recently, one of the renowned Indian politician openly stated “social media is electronic terrorism”. I think they aspire to control the social media as well, because mainstream media is directly or indirectly under the hands of the Indian government. In fact, social media also serves as a best example for free market catallaxy. There have been few recent arrests of social media dissidents, in democratic India, for expressing political views. There will come a day where the social media model of India will look much more similar when compared with China’s authoritarianism. God bless India.

 

TVP is “golem Communism”

iljaimine Thursday May 9, 2013
TVP stands for The Venus Project.  It is a holistic socioeconomic system in which all goods and services are available without the use of money, credits, barter or any other system of debt or servitude. All resources become the common heritage of all of the inhabitants, not just a select few. The premise upon which this system is based is that the Earth is abundant with plentiful resource. It is, nonetheless, beyond poverty, war and money too.  TVP proponents also openly claim that The Venus Project offers a comprehensive plan for social reclamation in which human beings, technology and nature will be able to coexist in a long term, sustainable state of dynamic equilibrium. But I claim that it is a “robotic socialism” or “golem communism”, because this futuristic project is based on resources and everyone will receive as per their need and not according to greed. There will be no political state or government, but instead the technological computers will undertake all the decision-making. Nevertheless, only one good thing about TVP is that it abhors nationalism and political governments who are largely responsible for the current predicament in our planet.

It is disgruntling to note that such a renowned structural engineer Jacque Fresco who also happens to be the founder of TVP along with Roxanne Meadows have extensively failed to ‘differentiate between Capitalism and Crony Capitalism’. For I have observed their views condemning Capitalism. Nonetheless, they also fail to note that Capitalism was never practiced and is not also currently executed because the system is infected only with Crony Socialism. TVP blames money for producing the crimes, but I think they fail to critically understand that it is the centralization of money-supply and fiatization of it which are virtually responsible for manufacturing crimes, in our economic society, today.   

It is sad to behold that TVP and its proponents have not actually studied social sciences, peculiarly economics. Therefore, talking to them about “human action”, “methodological individualism” and “subjective theory of value” will serve no splendid purpose. From my facebook discussions with them, I observed that they are highly toxic against individualism, economic liberty, and private property and individualist-anarchism. TVP, in theory, emphasises more on collectivism. I am sure that they consider “human nature” of all humans only from Hobbesian perspective, because TVP infuses great emphasis only on the centralization of all resources. TVP fails to understand that its own idea will lynch itself, when executed later. When the resources are centralized by the technological computers, the humans will become very dependent and lazy. If there are no monetary incentives, then the humans will certainly fail to shell out splendid output. If all the decisions are undertaken by the computers, according to TVP, then the intelligence and rational thinking will go extinct. On fictional side, what if the computers get hacked? On non-fictional side, TVP aspires to cover all the citizens of this planet in its ambit. Therefore, voluntaryist or individuals will be given no choice to TVP’s coercive social contract.

TVP is stringently against corruption and war, but it will certainly establish war, when executed, as the project is highly dependent on structuralism. Structural pacifism cannot be observed, in TVP, because when the cognition and conscience of an individual are owned by the TVP computers then it is expected that the conflicts will sooner or later emerge in the system. Isn’t TVP underestimating the objectivism of individualism and overestimating the conscience of computers?  

Hypocrisy of TVP proponents can also be seen now. They terribly abhor capitalism and money, but are using capitals to develop their project. No experimental model of TVP is yet installed in any city. Many of them oppose wars, but on the other side they obediently serve the political system. Don’t they know that civil disobedience is the true foundation of liberty? TVP keeps very secretive and protective of its ideas, which are in contrast with the open nature of a Resource-based-economy. Nevertheless, Jacque Fresco is personally protective of his intellectual property, including the term Resource-Based Economy (RBE), which is inconsistent with the principles and values of a RBE. TVP blames hierarchy order, in the contemporary society, for all the socioeconomic problems, but fails to understand that its own model follows top-down approach; recall, here, the principal (TVP members) and agent (computers) of TVP.

TVP claims that it is blueprint for new world civilization, whereas I think that it is blueprint for new individual destruction. I have not properly come across any definition on economics from TVP perspective. It does not also enlist ‘law of diminishing’ returns in its socioeconomic structure.  At the official website of TVP, I came across this sentence justifying how US availed the limited resources during World War II (1939-1945):

At the beginning of World War II the US had a mere 600 or so first-class fighting aircraft. We rapidly overcame this short supply by turning out more than 90,000 planes a year. The question at the start of World War II was: Do we have enough funds to produce the required implements of war? The answer was No, we did not have enough money, nor did we have enough gold; but we did have more than enough resources. It was the available resources that enabled the US to achieve the high production and efficiency required to win the war. Unfortunately this is only considered in times of war.

From the above abstract, I think that the RBE proponents only see one timeframe, and one group of people. They fail to understand that the art of economics consists in looking not merely at the immediate but at the longer effects of any act or policy; it consists in tracing the consequences of that policy not merely for one group but for all groups. They purposefully focus on a very small timeframe (such as war time production of First class fighting aircrafts), and only one side of the picture (that the production rose to 90,000 aircrafts a year from only 600 aircrafts a year). When you remove this error, and look at all timeframes not just one, and all groups of people not just one, you realize that they can hardly promise more production in all aspects of economy without a monetary system even when you give them a very liberal leeway.

I am not certain that who is well-trained, today, to take charge of TVP after Fresco and Meadows? Last but not least, TVP also points out that it will assist in stabilizing the world’s population through education and birth control. So I am bemused whether TVP acknowledged “one-child policy” from Communist China for this?

 

But, democracy isn’t democratic.

iljaimine Wednesday May 8, 2013
Image
Democracy, I think, is a “Communist agent”. It is, nonetheless, a “soft form of Communism”; because the entity called Democracy impudently and coercively walks the “road of Socialism”. The structural functionality of democracy wilfully depends upon the abundant supply of disarmed voters who are legally furnished with certain so-called democratic choices once in very few years to “elect” the ‘best oppressor’ who will constitutionally suppress the voters for next few years. I can also guarantee that “the institutionalism of democracy sleeps only with the crony socialists”. The crony socialists, simply, residing in the palaces of ‘shadow government’, in the democratic system; confidently “select” the meritocratic oppressor. Thence, it is very legitimate to point out that “democracy is not only a delusion but also a conspiracy”.

Democracy, in my view, is certainly a political conspiracy and not an ideology. I say so, because the state is highly regarded as legitimate by the majority of the population. Once upon a time, most land was owned by kings and then dictators who had taken it by violent conquest. As time went by the population wanted more power, and the legitimacy of the fascism dropped. In order to regain legitimacy and avoid losing all power, the leaders gradually gave up some of it to the population in the name of democracy. People, imbecilely, saw this as something positive, and the state gradually regained its political legitimacy. “People preferred democracy to a dictatorship because it gave them more power”. Today, unfortunately, people believe that the “state is necessary, government is essential, welfarism is fundamental, democracy is required and disarmament is must”, and therefore have valiantly stopped looking for alternatives. It is very difficult today to free the “democratic eejits” from the chains of political servitude which they radically revere. Nevertheless, they do not entice discoursing free market capitalism, liberty, private property and individualism. On a sickening note, I can also predict that tomorrow morning they can impudently “decide about what you should be wearing or not” by just citing the rationalism of ‘majoritarian rules in the democracy’. They will walk extra miles by swelling the chest to just notify you that ‘voice of the majority is the voice of the God’. I, therefore, think it is legitimate to critically point out that ‘democracy is a form of socialist government which stands for the communist state’ to “buy the people, off the people and far the people”.

Full government control of all activities of the individual is virtually the goal of democracy. I will surely commit suicide, if I happen to consciously experience that democratic society eliminates crony capitalism within this decade. I am confident to study that the democratic society is extensively failing to bridge the social gap, thus, the “democracy is preparing the crime and the voters are committing it”. Ever pondered that “why would, in a democratic society, the legislators have to frequently talk about freedom, democracy and liberty?” If democracy ensures establishment of an open society and growth of free thinkers, then why still the publishing materials are owned by the democratic governments? Why do the social activists or democratic protesters have to run poles-to-poles seeking permission to democratically protest in a liberal society?  If democracy is meritocratically the best form of government, then why there isn’t drop in ‘red-tapism’ procedures? In fact, I can easily challenge the proponents of democracy by simply hinting to them about the ‘censorship laws exceeding free speech in a democratic society’. Thus, it should be directly noted that the system of democracy is immensely immersed in the liver of masquerading regime.

 

Democracy doesn't favor the individual above all else, nor does it promise to. “One of its greatest failings is that single voices of reason are too easily drowned out by the cacophony of the masses.” Isn't it? In any system of democracy, the society is based on constitutional coercion than voluntary contracts. Freedom is a classical joke in the democratic society. Therefore, the eccentric individuality and rugged individualism are lost in the matrix of democracy. Nevertheless, even the followers of hypocritical Ayn Rand indirectly call for “limited government” protecting the individual rights than actually enunciating anarcho-capitalism as a splendid alternative in their discourse. Nonetheless, ‘democracy is a live gang rape of all the people in action’. Isn't it? Last but not least, the health of democracy depends upon quantity than quality. The ‘majoritarian mechanism’ enlists even ignoramus in it, who largely infringe upon the individualism and privacy of enlightening individuals. The leaders, in the political system of democracy, are busier with forming political alliances and thereby maintaining their positions rather than looking after the administration. Isn't it? In practice, the administration is run by the bureaucrats who owe no responsibility to the people. Therefore, democracy is a ‘cult of incompetence'. Now, let me not also highlight about corruption in democracy because even the founders of democracy down there burning in hell are conscious about it.

Ever wondered about who’s “paying” for the functioning of all political parties in the system of democracy? I guess printing more money, inflating the prices, centralizing the banks and taxing people conventionally serves as open sources for this payment. Who knows what is financed behind the mainstream political picture? Anyways, did you also go through my previous essay that how in the name of “we” the democracy and its government exploits an individual?

Last but not least, democracy supports eminent domain and opposes liberty.

__

I am highly obliged to my media students Shariq Khan and Divya Dhanuka for researching the materials on this topic.