Loading...
 

Indian Libertarians

Life, Liberty and Property

United WE fall, Divided WE stand

iljaimine Sunday April 28, 2013
::The best way, I think, to unite the imbeciles against the proponents of private property is to false flag any constitutional issue.  The success of the false flag operation depends upon the content of fear which is wilfully generated in the minds of ~~#0000ff:imbeciles:

In the name of good governance, the government significantly unites them. This unity, I think, devalues the most important economical feature i.e. subjective theory of value - thus - the mainstream economists who impudently come out of this unity don’t only obey the integrity of it but also succeed in degrading the principle of methodological individualism. These mainstream economists, associated with the welfare state, are also not in the profound position to respect eccentric individualism. They, nonetheless, also clamor publicly by constantly repeating the power of unity in this society. I don’t know why, in a united society, the political authorities have to constantly repeat about the strength of unity? Anyways, they divulge, through the so-called free press, by rationalizing that ‘’united we stand, divided we fall”. In my view, they highly fail to comprehend that an individual can realize itself only when the fabric of its society is disorganized. The disorganization actually assists an individual to discover or explore more economic opportunities. It also helps in enunciating spontaneous order than imposed order. An economic society based on uniform codes or imposed order begets a socialist nation of nepotism. An economic society formed on the basis of unity can never ever take the proficiency of any individual into its structural consideration, because the health of unity depends upon the taxation of wealth owned by the individuals. Such society isn't only unhealthy, but also devalues the historic culture and traditions, as diligently preserved by the individuals. This so-called united strength isn't friendly to the individuals, because it serves as a great opportunity only for the State to simply misuse the character of unity by politically organizing information asymmetry, communalism, famine, etc. into the society so that the Government continue to hold the power and the faithful voters continue to vote as well as clamour for more good governance in the society. Good governance cannot come with limited government, because the maintenance of it depends upon the size of government. It is logically impossible to behold the government cutting its size. Only #0000ff:free market catallaxy justify;" >The imbeciles mustn’t forget that, in the name of national unity, the Government initially use the colored flag to manipulate the minds of the united people and then using it as ceremonial shrouds to bury the dead people. Moreover, in the united society, the fathers, unfortunately, bury their dead sons. Any human being mustn’t also forget that Communism, in the name of social welfarism, which revolutionarily united the proletariats killed more than #0000ff:25millions of communists by the Communism itself~~. The intention of unity is to infuse the objective theory of value. When objective theory of value is applied in basic economics, the economic doom of the market, sooner or later, is surely inevitable. The break-up of Soviet Union is one of the best economic examples hitherto. Only, in the anarcho-capitalist society, the free market can furnish proficient defence system which do not intervenes in the primacy of individual rights. It neither calls the proponents of free market to unite nor lectures about trading activities. The societal order of anarcho-capitalism is very spontaneous and well-networked, thus, the scope of imposed order is completely absent. It also helps any Individual to also attain the existential consciousness. Whereas, the imposed order formed from the so-called contract tabled by the united people is highly vulnerable to “define and rule” as well as “divide and rule”. History is, thus, evident.

Collectivism is an infinite torture to mankind. In the name of unity, the word “WE” is coercively poured over a rational voluntaryist. It crushes his or her individualism. WE, the people, also legally steal the virtue, capital and life of any individual. Murder by the “WE” is legal too. WE, the people, also foolishly fool the weak and rob the wisdom of the individuals. WE, the people, are a masquerading consciousness that abhors the system of private property and individual liberty. An Individual, I think, could be mad, but madness is the significant rule in the system of ‘We, the people’. This ‘We, the people’ system enhances only indubitability, indomitability and crony profitability at the exploitation of individualism. Anyways, at the end of the day, I still don’t know why private activity is considered amoral, whereas the activity done by ‘We, the people’ is considered moral? Nonetheless, don’t forget that apartheid was once legal in South Africa. Only disunity can help an Individual to discover its own individualism, or else the life is obviously lifeless. Therefore, “united we fail, divided we succeed” must be the new consciousness, I believe, in order to depart away from the commonness or unitedness that merely lacks common-sense.

 

Deficit of Austrian Economics and Surplus of Hobbesian Politics in India

iljaimine Wednesday April 24, 2013
The democratic system of social welfarism, in India, is the significant root cause of all the malocclusion and malevolency in the structures of political economy and information society. The so-called revised structures, since 1991, under the bureaucratic directives of structuralists, are not only enunciating delusional imaginations but also investing hardcore Keynesian models in all its economic thinking, policies and predictions, which on other consequential side is purely not establishing the holistic development of business friendly environment, in India. I confirm to exposit that the political system of India is interventionistic beyond the normal levels. This can, unfortunately, serve as an impalpable conclusion that the conformistic outlook of Indian polity towards Economics is parochialistic. In this parochial box, the Indian political economy is impudently sitting with comfort by systematically injecting crony socialism at the expense of tax-payers, entrepreneurs, innovation and private education. This comfort is, obviously, secured by the abundant supply of the imbecilic ‘common men’, in India.

This amoral comfort is rigorously generated through the prisms of public education system which obediently salutes the Marxian and Keynesian economics. Thus, it is hard to free such disarmed ignoramus from the chains of servitude which they radically revere. The viruses, in the education system, neither infuse Hayekianism nor Misesian models in the academic studies. Albeit the civilized pupils have free choice, but I ponder that why would, in an independently free nation like India, the role of government has to be briefed in all the informational dimensions? Is this exoteric free choice esoterically backed by fear? Is free choice permitted to voluntarily denounce the social contract as authored by the democratic Indian Hobbesians since 26th January, 1950? Is free choice also in the curious position to let the imaginations about free market prevail? Last but not least, the Mainstream Economics is not only systematically lynching the financial structures of India but also producing masquerading reports or speculations that rationally dissemble the irrational mobocrats. I am disgruntled to behold that the so-called splendid public economists of India have not simply succeeded to actually comprehend what economics is.

Economics, in my Austrian perspective, is simply about time, choice, value and human action. The mainstream economists of India have leniently failed to estimate the power of Austrian economics. These mainstream economists, peculiarly, accrue wrong views about the Austrian Economics. Thanks to the organization of information asymmetry by the Indian Hobbesians, in India, for underestimating the essence of free market and praxeology. In fact, on a sad note, the anti-eccentricist Indian Hobbesians have wilfully over used the term called ‘Economy’ by suppressing ‘Catallaxy’. Oppressing catallaxy did not assist the financial structures either. Current account deficit of India still serves as a classic example which denotes the failure of Indian Hobbesians who don’t only lack knowledge but also common-sense in general. The economic sentiments of national and international Investors have not been taken into considerable confidence, because the fiscal policies are allowed to romance only with the imbecility of salt water economics, thence, the endogenous and exogenous economic variables of the Indian economy are suffering from the crookedness of crony socialism. The Indian Hobbesians also dislike to publicly debate. The apoplithorismophobic central bankers of India, under constant supervision, are not boosting low interest rates fearing inflation. Therefore, the Indian economy is consciously blessing itself with jobless growth, malinvestments and nothing else.  Such malinvestments are phoning the prices in market; hence, capitalism shouldn’t be condemned because it has not been practiced in India. The more the Indian hobbesians poke their sordid nose in the market, the more it will abhor those who favor free market. The more the amoral elites are bailed out, the more apolitical the Indian economic society will get.

It is not authentic for me to conclusively exposit the splendid functionalism of liberal democracy in India, because I rationally behold excessive red-tapism. If Indian Hobbesians continue to exist further, then great will be my sin to call India an ineptocratic nation by next fiscal year. The armed Indian Hobbesians control all the estates of India’s democracy. If I am wrong to state that, then shouldn’t we observe the mainstream economists and its mainstream media debating the Iceland issue that serves as a good example for punishing the crony socialists?

To cycle the boom, in India, I think that the Indian hobbesians are naturally expected to tranquilly resign. Through peaceful means, the Indian society can flourish. Hobbesianism seeks its source in human nature, whereas free market capitalism seeks its source in human action. Too much aggregations of the aggregates have closed the gates to prosper, thus, the individuals suffer a lot. Austrian economics compensates, here, by booming the growth by expanding the credit at low interest rates. By bailing out losers, the Indian hobbesians are only serving the crony capitalism and nobody else. By serving the individuals, Austrian economists bail in decentralized planning, thus, the subjective theory of value equilibriums into an objective reality. Without centralized planning, the Indian individuals can uplift themselves from matrix to liberty.  Without government spending, the Individuals will proficiently and respectively discover their own individuality. With Austrian Economics, the global society can embrace globalization and denounce globalism.

 

'Aadhaar Card' disdains the Indian people

iljaimine Friday April 19, 2013
Since the year 1950, ‘Independent India’ replicated the ‘Westminster political model’ from her former Colonialists Great Britain and adopted it in the political and economic system of India by juxtaposing the Constitution of Indian Republic which also happens to be borrowed from various other Constitutions. Let me, now, not highlight about imitating the western-film scripts as widely seen in Indian films and even songs. The major concern is not that the system of “Aadhar Card” or “Unique Identity Number” is copy-pasted from USA which allots the “Social Security Number (SSN)” to its citizens, but to notify the Indian populace that this ‘ponzi-scheme’ called Aadhaar Card is a big attack on the sovereignty of Indian people and also a succinct invasion in the personal freedom of the Indian individuals. Hitherto, the Indian Government has spent tax-money worth Rs. 15,000crores for this project UID (Unique Identification Number) or Aadhaar Card.  That’s just the official data I asserted, and now it is up to you to imagine about the unofficial data.

By this confounding project, except for Indian politicians, the anti-eccentricist Indian Government intends to respectively cover or enroll the Indian public with ‘’unique identification number’’ which will assist the socialism bureaucracy of the Indian political system to accordingly sponsor welfare schemes for the Indian citizens. Albeit the Indian Government claims the project is based on voluntary enrollment, but directs the Indian citizens to mandatorily enroll in it if it were to respectively apply for the ration card registrations, gas-cylinder registrations, telephones, school/college admission, etc. Moreover, the project doesn't only cover the Indian nationals but also the immigrants residing, in India, legally or illegally. Any doubt that the secular and socialistic Indian Government isn't hypocrite?  

Yes, the project will also help the Indian politicians to politically play with the public welfare and common goods, before and during the elections, especially by directly transferring the cash or subsidies to the bank accounts linked up to UID number of those who fortunately belong to the semi-peripheral and peripheral economic classes, living on low-wages. I am also critically certain that this project will strengthen the spirit of Crony Socialism in India. Moreover, the Indian Government didn’t entice private partnership in this project. Shall I say that it is stepping up fascism in Indian constitutionality?

The UIDAI (Unique Identification Authority of India) formed to structure this project have underestimated a biological fact that the fingerprints and iris of the Indian Individuals, whilst processing for the Aadhaar card, are not static and are bound to change with the passage of time. Moreover, it didn’t succeed to check or verify the originality of the documents as shown by the imbecilic enrollers during the enrolment process. Can this project also guarantee that the personal data of UID enrollers will be not subjected to any misuses? And, what if the Chinese triads happen to hack the central database system of UIDAI? Will the UIDAI convince the Indian politicians to also enrol for it, as most of them haven’t? Will it even dare to enlist the income-data and parliamentary-attendance in the Aadhaar card for Indian politicians, so that the ‘obedient voters’ can make informed choices during elections? At the end of the day, I think that the UID number will simply boost the apolitical spirit of the Indian political system by strategizing away from ‘divide and rule’ to ‘define and rule'. 

 

Liberalism : What is it?

srinivas.chakravarti Wednesday April 17, 2013

Liberalism is a frequently used and much abused word in modern day political discourse. Who is a Liberal and what does Liberalism stand for? Do we assume that all those on the left of the political spectrum are liberals? If so, then all those on the right are 'Conservatives'. By listening to and reading modern day Liberals, one can draw the conclusion that, they are for a 'free' society, with a safety net to help the poor, diseased, hungry and in general the helpless. So does this mean the 'Conservatives' are opposed to a free society and a social safety net?

Liberals tend to favor laws to promote environmentalism; that is protection of the environment, since there are individuals and businesses willing to pollute the environment regardless of the cost. Hence, we can say that only 'Liberals' truly care for humanity while the rest are haters of humanity, maybe even misanthropes!

I think it is time to investigate what 'Liberalism' really is and isn't. If we were to take these 'Liberals' seriously, then we can conclude the so called 'free' society they cherish and wish to promote, in reality is actually social democracy. So do we then assume that a social democratic society is the most 'free' and 'compassionate' society?

The question then arises, who will fund this social democracy to keep us 'free' and 'humane'? The answer is 'We the people'. Who the heck, are "We the people"? This refers to anyone who is part of a democratic society. A superficial survey reveals, that 'The People consist of individuals, groups of individuals that make up distinct ethnic, racial, religious and linguistic communities. Knowing this, can we take the idea of  'We the people" funding a social democratic society seriously? Will this social democracy not create conflicts between individuals and groups of individuals? Have we not seen competing special interest groups lobbying for new laws, rules and regulations? Have we not experienced in history, various groups competing for even greater power?

Liberals, say that it is in the interest of social democracy that all individuals and groups of individuals be given 'equal' say in society. Everyone must have a voice in this great social democracy, that is kept us 'free' and 'humane'. Does no one see the problem here? How can anyone expect a society to remain free, if special interest groups struggle and compete for power. When we say 'power', it refers to political power; the power to rule and regulate the very same social democracy, so that we may remain free and humane.

The question is then, how do we preserve this balance of power and freedom? Of course, the Liberals, as usual have answers for all problems. Liberals love the idea of creating new laws, abolishing old ones, modifying regulations and rules, and all this in the name of keeping us free and humane. Is there any Liberal who ever opposed the creation of laws, which reduced our freedom/liberty? No doubt, there have been instances when Liberals have opposed creation of new laws, but that is only if it violates their sacred social democracy.

You protest too much, says the Liberal. The Liberals says 'We are all not the same'. It is true Liberals tend to have varying opinions as to how society should be kept free and humane. It would be unfair to group every single Liberal under one banner and condemn them as Social Democrats. So, do different types of Liberals exist? Yes, they do and to understand it's roots, we need to go back it it's foundations; Classical Liberalism.

Even a superficial reading of the philosophy of Classical Liberalism, the reader will realize that, Liberalism is not what it seems. It is in direct contradiction with post modern Liberalism. To understand post modern Liberalism, it is better to start by reading the works of Karl Marx and his disciples instead of John Stuart Mill.

Before we dive into Classical Liberalism; let us look at the definition of Liberalism.

From the Oxford British English Dictionary :-

 

Origin:

Middle English: via Old French from Latin liberalis, from liber 'free (man)'. The original sense was 'suitable for a free man', hence 'suitable for a gentleman' (one not tied to a trade), surviving in liberal arts. Another early sense 'generous'(compare with liberal (sense 4 of the adjective)) gave rise to an obsolete meaning 'free from restraint', leading to liberal (sense 1 of the adjective) (late 18th century)

Keeping the origin of the word in mind, let us see what the great Classical Liberal historian Ralph Raico has to say -

 

"Classical liberalism" is the term used to designate the ideology advocating private property, an unhampered market economy, the rule of law, constitutional guarantees of freedom of religion and of the press, and international peace based on free trade.

Let us look at the key words mentioned in the definition; private property, the market economy, rule of law, freedom of religion and press via constitution, international peace(non-interventionist foreign policy) and free trade.

Ask any post modern Liberal about the meaning of those key words, and mostly likely the reaction will be either anger or confused silence. Have the post modern Liberals, those free and humane folks, ever traced the history of Liberalism, or are they deliberately confusing the meaning? The answer is both. Most post modern Liberals only know of Liberalism, from what has been taught to them by Progressives/Marxists in academia. The academia which is now essentially a State owned, managed and controlled institution is a hotbed of Progressive/Marxist thought. Can we honestly expect Progressives/Marxists to promote individual freedom/liberty, free trade, private property rights and non-interventionist foreign policy?

The only things these Progressive/Marxists disguised as Liberals are interested in is; Feminism, Environmentalism, Class Struggle, Egalitarianism, Multiculturalism, Secularism, Political Correctness, destroying heritage, destroying religion, breaking up families and imposing a new social order, which has no grounding in reality. They wish to destroy all that is good about society and coerce individuals to sacrifice their liberty and property to conform to a more 'free' and 'humane' social order.

They wish to celebrate hedonism and libertinism as true 'freedom'. They despise the very idea of traditional marriage, family and community. They despise any individual who professes any sense of heritage, culture, Tradition and ethnic identity. They want all individuals to conform to a Utopian ideal of absolute equality of not only opportunity but also outcomes.

So do we still celebrate this 'Liberalism' which shall make us equal slaves in the name of maintaining a 'free' and 'humane' society?

So what must be done in order to stem the march of the social democratic Leviathan which will keep us 'free' and 'humane'? We must destroy(intellectually of course) the very idea of imposing an egalitarian social order. The cure is the systematic study and promotion of the idea of liberty, private property and capitalism. Libertarians(the true classical liberals) must uproot this foolish idea of egalitarianism from the mind of fellow beings. There can never be absolute equality of opportunity and outcome, but equality only in Rights; the right to individual life, liberty and (private) property. Everything else springs forth from these rights.

To better understand; Classical Liberalism, please read this superb essay by Ralph Raico - What Is Classical Liberalism?

 

Abhorring “Free Love”?

iljaimine Monday April 15, 2013
The mobs of our society ‘masquerading normality’ and ‘structuralizing morality’, in our abnormal society, I think, are so imbecilic and conformistic that even their God would fail to make them spiritually understand about the ‘libertarianic power’ of free love; which is, today, unfortunately accommodating in a danger zone due to the strong foundation of statism, which impudently walks extra miles to coercively tax the contractual systems of marriage, divorce and relationship. Like free market and free trade, the Governments and their obedient voters also have a deep hatred for free love because “seeing an individual free is unconstitutional”, in the eyes of statism.

The term ‘marriage’ may sound crispy to most of the imbeciles but it is nothing except ‘a system of legalized rape’ which only insures psychological enslavement and physical torture, in the name of emotions and love. In this so-called contract, the women or the men, albeit educated, mutually and unconsciously abide by the irrational standards of society. This society do not also regards the ‘primacy of individual rights’. The parties (bride and groom), ignorantly, enlisted in the contract consider ‘marriage as a fundamental option of life’. They fail to actually understand that ‘it is not part of life, but strategic part shelled out by the collective imbeciles like the society and the government’ which jointly possesses an ‘esoteric agenda to gradually and systematically control the individuals by masquerading around that marriage is the successful bond of a true relationship and without it the relations between a man and a woman cannot be socially acknowledged’. Thence, ‘Marriage becomes a true hero; whereas Free Love a devilish demon’, in our so-called civilized society.

It is sad to note that, today, most of our obedient people rationally condemn “free love” without experiencing it or even learning it. These people are also bound to resort to ‘ad hominem’ against those who valiantly and diligently propound free love, in the human society which is comfortably adjusted with the chains of servitude. Let me consensually attack your ‘manufactured psychedelia’ by profoundly clarifying that “free love is not about free sex” but about “acknowledging the eccentricity and personal freedom of your respective beloved”. Free love do not considers marriage as an important compulsory activity, but voluntarily enhances marriage based on the mutual comprehension between the Individuals as involved. Free Love freely embraces the bonding between Gay, Bisexuals, Lesbians, Men and Women and precisely condemns the dictations and interventions by the Society, Religion and Governments. To be noted, “all Individuals are born free and with eccentric Individuality”, therefore, it is “not ethical to infringe upon the loving rights and sexual rights of any Individuals on the basis of caste, colour, sex, religion, race, class and nationality”.

Nature as well as the ‘principles of Non-Aggression’ does not permit the infringement of Individualism till it physically harms any Individual. The philosophy of Free Love has also beget certain concepts like ‘live in relationship’, ‘nudism’, etc. which naturally and praxeologically expositions the human nature very splendidly. The human nature, since birth, is not brutish. It is brutalised and polluted by the ‘imbecilic’ “agents of socializations” like family, society, religions and governments who have no idea about what love actually is. These socializing agents are so obsessed with the system of marriage that they don’t only resort only to ‘conspicuous consumption’ but also end up paying the taxes indirectly immersed whilst marrying. They also hold the view that marriage acknowledges the social acceptance of emotions and love, in society, but fail to extensively check the rising divorces and cases of extra-marital affairs. It is only the “free love that does not fake love”, unlike marriage love. Free Love collectively endorses the philosophy of respecting the human body, whereas Marriage Love ensures the philosophy of constituting marital rape. Free Love is cognitively and sexually matured for enunciating various decisions within a relationship, whereas Marriage Love neither entices the LGBT rights nor condemns the State for constantly intervening in natalism. Free Love preaches to love any Individual of any age, colour, religion, etc. whereas Marriage Love ponders over caste, religion, colour, dowry, etc. before formally contractualizing the marriage, in society.

I rest my case by ratiocinating that, ‘Marriage, without Liberty, is not a Marriage, but a contract of legalized Rape’. Without Free Love, no Society deserves to be called itself as a Society. Faking love, in the name of Free Love, for meeting sexual desires is not Free Love but Prostitution. Free Love do not conceptualizes the establishment of Faking Love, but leniently authors to spiritually and materially respect the human body and soul of any Individual without State Interventionism. It also condemns the marriage which is coercively, not cognitively, enshrined upon the Individuals. Free Love, I suppose, is also a beautiful philosophy of cognitive libertarianism that do not tolerates the mental and physical abuses, of any Individual, by the Positive Liberalists. Free Love is the way to set our society free. It is only free love that can invest in a new society based on open transactions, free trade and free market.

 

The Imbeciles of India

iljaimine Saturday April 13, 2013

The more the Indian political society drifts away from free-thinking, voluntary association and libertarianism, the more it will abhor those who valiantly stand for it.

With this supposition, the Indian Government has elitistically, constitutionally and extensively succeeded to install social welfarism, in all the structural-functional dynamics of her economy, which is nothing but a set of legalized ponzi-schemes to keep the poor sections poorer. The comfort of the “crony capitalists” and Indian politicians depend(s) upon the abundant supply of the middle-classes and poor sections, wherein the black profits are privatized whilst the private debts are socialized. May God bless the RBI for degrading this financial symmetry. This ponzi-scheme is so fundamentally strong that the obedient mobs have denounced the applications of economic logic and reasoning. To cure the economic diseases and political viruses, the movement propositioned byhttp://indianlibertarians.org/about-us/ is radically determined to undress the imbecility from Democratic India and install or replace it with the prosperous enhancements as guaranteed by the spirituality of “individual libertarianism and free-market capitalism”.

Most of the Indian citizens, who’re periodically programmed through the state-controlled-apparatuses like education system, media, etc., are cognitively of the view that “Libertarianism is a slavery of Materialism”, it is also an ‘’anti-poor ideology’’ and it creates “chaos in the society because of its anarchic leanings”. I was taken aback when I debated this beautiful philosophy with the ugly socialists residing as majority. The imbecilic Indian mobs so foolishly, blindly and faithfully invest their respective hope in Indian Democracy, peculiarly the Indian Government that “conveying them about the idea of economic freedom, free market, free trade and political liberty becomes one of the most uneasy tasks in our mankind”. The social as well as the political behaviour of the Indian imbeciles or the Indian socialists are subscribed not only with the chains of servitude but also with ‘stockholm syndrome’. They’re also the victims of ‘cognitive dissonance’, because they do not want to entice new ideas that challenge their orthodox political wisdom. Moreover, some are so hopelessly dead within their own conscience that they threaten the libertarians with legal consequences. This, holistically, led me to point out that there is “no democracy in India but wide establishment of imbecilism”.

In the past, I seriously pondered whether there really can be liberty in so-called liberal India?: http://indianlibertarians.org/2013/04/05/can-there-be-liberty-in-so-called-liberal-india/ which must be assertively observed to thoroughly study by critically differentiating the dividends incurred out between the system of Government and the free market, because the economy is organic: http://indianlibertarians.org/2013/04/10/resource-management-government-vs-free-market/

I also expect the honourable Indian imbeciles to take a deep look into the prosperity of Somalia: http://indianlibertarians.org/2013/03/02/praxeological-somalian-theory-for-socialist-india/ which now assists me to link up ‘’life, liberty and property’’ as a basic tool to enhance for the human prosperity in order to fight against the great austerity: http://indianlibertarians.org/2013/04/09/life-property-socialism-liberty/

After observing the above links, you would be feeling that India is really a fascistic economy. Yes, I think you are correct, because there is this concept called ‘eminent domain’ that facilitates your critical thinking (Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eminent_domain). This concept is not taught in our Indian public schools nor publicly debated, as teaching it to the students or the Indian populace can infuse a great loss to the budget of the Indian Government. It is, however, unfortunate to also note that the imbecilic Indian systems abhor the power of reason, as I noted before. Even God knows that, “to debate with irrationalistic imbeciles is like administering medicine to the dead person”.

The status of conceptualizing the eminent domain, in the Indian structuralism, helps us to judge or determine the attitude of the Indian constitutionality. If there can be no allotment to an Indian Individual to freely and privately own the “property without fear, property without state interventionism, property without red-tapism and property without liberty”, then it is sad to say that the “political economy of India is in danger zone”. Nothing new from me to also assert that the lengthiest written Indian Constitution is nothing but a book filled with contradictions, “borrowed” from various sources like UK, US, Irish, Australian constitution. So this shall be also noted that the imbeciles also lack creativity and innovation skills.

When the economy of the Indian state is authorized to legally take over the private property of an Individual, then this can be guaranteed that there is “ill-liberalism in India”. Compensation given out by the India State also does not secure the life and liberty of an Indian individual, in the context of ‘eminent domain’.  Moving to the Courts to fight the legal battle against the Indian State is another loss to the pocket, time and energy of an Individual, as “14,00,000 cases are ‘still pending’ in India”.

If this trend obediently continues then the state of the Indian economy will never prosper, no matter how much levels of fiscal is injected into the system. As long as the “disarmed imbeciles” continue to abhor ‘voluntaryism, libertarianism and free market’, in India, the “armed government” will continue to beget fascism into this system.

 

Resource-management: Government v/s Free market

admin Thursday April 11, 2013
Government, I think, is a masquerading political machine eventually abhorring the proficiency of economic reasoning because it legally and coercively schools itself and its obedient voters only with socialism, red-tapism and tyranny. If, you and me, happen to encounter the Politicians speaking about liberty and freedom then we must consciously watch out, because, in a free nation, no one has to really tell us that we are free. And, if the so-called moralistic Government really means or infuses the liberty in its political society then I think it must also enlist the right to speak out what the society do not want to hear. I am obvious now that there is no such thing called Liberty in today’s political society because the democratic mobs, as organized by the Government, have lynched the very principles of it. Therefore, I aspire to revive it through http://indianlibertarians.org/about-us/

 To begin with, I raise a question:

"Who should conserve our resources?"

If a so-called open poll were taken, a large majority probably would answer: "Our Government."

And if one were to ask why this view is so widely held, he would find among other "reasons" the following:

(1) That the free market is chaotic, gives profits to the few, and is unmindful of the great "waste" of our diminishing limited resources;

(2) That "people's rights" are above "private or special interests" and only the government can properly serve the public interest;

(3) That government has access to more funds;

(4) That government has the power and facilities to obtain all the necessary data and to do the research needed for the best "scientific" decisions on resource conservation;

(5) That the price system does not operate in the interests of conservation because of the "unrestrained pursuit of self-interest";

(6) That the concentration of power in some corporations further threatens our dwindling resources and must be regulated by government.

These "reasons," of course, do not indicate how a government agency would go about attempting a solution to the conservation problem—this is always just assumed—but considers them briefly:

(l) The free market is anything but chaotic.

Competing natural market forces reflect in prices the wishes of both buyers and sellers—millions of individuals, separately accountable and responsible for their own actions in their own field of economic activity. All persons seek their own advantage when allowed a choice, but in the free market a producer cannot profit unless he pleases consumers better than his competitor does. Since he must think of efficiency and lowered costs in order to survive, it is false to assume that he alone profits from the use of natural resources from which are made the products wanted by consumers. All gain who use the resulting products.

(2) Can there be "people's rights" superior to the rights of individuals?

All individuals have special and private interests and rights. Therefore, the "people" cannot have rights except individually; and the right to life carries with it the right to maintain it by private and special means. These means also include liberty and property. Link: Liberty, not Socialism, is the way http://indianlibertarians.org/2013/04/09/life-property-socialism-liberty/

 (3) Government have access to funds.

The government has no funds that have not been taken from the people by force, whereas many a large private undertaking has come forth from voluntarily contributed funds. In fact, the entire industrial development can happen only when there is voluntary association and not state-interventionism in this country. This voluntary association manufactures the facilities for production by giving the consumer what he wants at the price he is willing to pay in competition.

(4) Offhand it would seem that a government might have access to more data about scarce resources than would a private enterpriser.

But government cannot bring forth the detailed information so vital to sound decision. The kind of detailed knowledge needed simply isn't "given to anyone in its totality," as F A Hayek has pointed out, "Knowledge of the circumstances of which we must make use never exists in concentrated or integrated form, but solely as dispersed bits of incomplete and frequently contradictory knowledge which all the separate individuals possess.”

Yet, producers need such information before they can decide how to act. The chief communicator of this knowledge is free price movements. If the price of a given resource continues upward, this tells producers all they need to know about its increasing scarcity and signals them to conserve it, to use it sparingly and for the most valuable products.

Advocates of government planning never seem to grasp how this works, for they are constantly tampering with market forces, distorting the delicate price signals that could otherwise guide them. Thus, government planners must rely on using general data obtained by crude polling methods which are unreliable for action in specific economic areas and are out of date before they can be collected, analyzed, and summarized. Moreover, such studies cannot tell the government controller as much as free price movements tell individuals acting in a particular market as buyers or sellers.

(5) The role that prices play in the free economy is so little understood that many people believe government must set prices lest they reflect only the "selfish interests" of the producers.

The price system not only tells producers and consumers when scarcity of a product exists (prices rise) or when it has become more plentiful (prices drop); it also supplies the incentive to act in the interests of conservation by seeking a substitute for the high-priced scarce material. Competitive prices allocate scarce resources to those who will pay more (not those who have more, as is alleged) for the right to try to serve consumers efficiently and profitably.

(6) If concentration of power in corporations is too great to be permitted, what about the ultimate concentration of power in a government institution beyond the regulation of market forces?

Government is unaccountable in the sense that it is not obliged to please consumers in order to stay in business. If it does not show a profit, its losses can be covered by tax money. Big corporations can behave in monopolistic fashion only if they enjoy government privileges of some kind. Potential competition, substitution, and elasticity of demand force them to keep prices close to the competitive level.

What happens when the Government control

The foregoing arguments, however, do not touch upon the basic problem involved in the conservation of resources. Let us assume that Government passes a conservation law setting up "The Central Bureau of Conservation." Tax money must then be appropriated for this Bureau. The director, a political appointee, must find a building and hire a staff large enough to justify his salary. To investigate and collect data on what is being done is a time- and tax-consuming job.

Turning the conservation problems over to an agency with police power does not mean solution, however. It only means that the director has been given the authority to find a solution and to force it on those individuals who are in the market for natural resources. This does not assure the public that the director has any special grant of wisdom concerning the problems involved, or that he will even know what they are. This appointment would lead him to assume that individual enterprisers were not doing their jobs well. He would undoubtedly define his task as one of finding what individual enterprisers are doing wrong and stopping it. Such interference could only prevent private individuals from utilizing their creativity and energy in seeking a solution to both immediate and long-run conservation problems. Having stopped this flow of creative endeavor  he would need to find a "positive" solution—such as stockpiling by force certain quantities of those materials deemed most scarce.

Some hard decisions

But for whom would the director be stockpiling? Would he sacrifice the present generation to future ones? And, if so, which ones? The next generation, the one after that, those living a hundred years from now, or whom? And how could he possibly know what those generations would want or need? Moreover, he would have the problem of what quantities to stockpile and what grades (best or worst) to save. Would some items have alternative uses? Would he plan for possible added or new uses in the future? These questions never seem to be asked by the authors of books and articles on conservation, whose specialty is to condemn private enterprise.

Stockpiling only aggravates the very scarcity given as the reason for stockpiling. The more scarce a stockpiled item, the higher the price, and the more complaints to be heard from the users.

Whereupon, the director probably would seek power to fix prices lower than market levels. This, of course, could only lead to increased demand and pressure on prices, leading to black markets or government rationing, or both. Allocation by rationing would present the problem of whom to favor and whom to slight. His authority to discriminate would subject the director to strong political pressures. If not by political favoritism  the director could select by personal preference, or first come, first favored  The system of government planning implies arbitrary discrimination by one man with police power who decides who shall get what. Without personal favouritism, the free market "discriminates" against those who would waste scarce materials—it lets their businesses fail—and "discriminates" for those who would most efficiently use the resource to serve consumers—their profit depends on their capacity to conserve the scarce resource.

The government system is based on arbitrary decisions of man over man, with strong probability of political influence; the free market system is influenced by non-political and non-personal forces.

J. S. Mill has expressed it thus: "The only unfailing and permanent source of improvement is liberty, since by it there are as many possible independent centers of improvement as there are individuals."

Natural resources are best utilized and conserved where they meet specific economic requirements in the most efficient way as determined by competition in the free market. Government control of natural resources reduces the freedom and this affects adversely the freedom of choice of consumers who buy the final products made from of choice of producers in using these materials them. There is no effective method of determining the economic requirements of the people when the free market is not allowed to reflect them, nor can force solve the problem of conservation. It is a false panacea that is centuries old, advocated by those who desire power over others whom they neither trust nor respect.

Conservation will take place in the best sense where individuals are allowed to seek solutions to their own personal problems as they arise. Necessity is the mother not only of invention but of conservation as well.

Bother to read, how Anarchic Somalia is doing better than others and India? Link: http://indianlibertarians.org/2013/03/02/praxeological-somalian-theory-for-socialist-india/

 

Life + Property - Socialism = Liberty

admin Wednesday April 10, 2013
In this age of rigorous irrationality and constant Statism, it is very difficult to free the educated as well as uneducated obedient voters from the chains of politically servitude which they economically revere. I don’t know why people have to consent to their own slavery? Like ‘fiscal illusion’, I sense ‘liberty illusion’, here, in this political setup, which systematically produces the sheeple of obedient voters, every new fiscal year, who prefer to die than think at all. These ‘disarmed obedient voters are the true foundation of Socialism’ who are ‘splendidly lazy’ and ‘rationally unconscious’ to pride over the status of ‘liberty deficit’ in the significant balance sheet. This balance sheet enlists the indubitable shit of ‘armed Government’ which rationally protects the self-interests of the State and its crony lobbies who are confidently eu-demon-istic over the tax-money. The soul of armed ape-man, today, I sense, must be disconcerted with this political fact where the millions of disarmed obedient voters periodically decide about their favorite ‘legal butchers’ by delusively believing that ‘Socialism works’. The reality, in this reality, is not the reality, because socialism isn't working but sucking the lifeblood of entrepreneurs, innovators and manufacturing sector – thus – facilitating the rational strategies of the Government to establish ponzi scheme at a very large scale. Thence, in the name of Social Welfarism, the Government is dreadfully succeeding by defaming the spirit of Capitalism through the mode of information asymmetry. Therefore, I unfortunately see that even educated people aren't matured enough, today, to critically differentiate between Capitalism and Crony Capitalism. This, holistically, is the political economic setup of Crony Socialism and nothing else.

I suppose that those who seductively abhor Capitalism do not want to touch the senses of economic freedom. I believe so, because Capitalism and Economic freedom walk together on the roads of Liberty. Therefore, I exposit that, “Without capitalism, human life is dyschezic. Without liberty, human life is dyspeic. Without property, human life is dystopic.” And do you know who the “worst illiterate”, in our society, is? It is not only the one who does not learn and relearn but the one who invests confidence in the Government but not in itself. This “worst illiterate” acquires education to gate-pass it for the jobs, good marriage, insured pensions, etc. than ever dares to ideally learn ‘basic Economics’. This “worst illiterate” is not only the victim of ‘cognitive dissonance’ but also the great facilitator of ‘rat-race economy’. This “worst illiterate” is so hardly trained with the ‘stockholm syndrome’ that it’ll never care to imagine about the functional dynamics of ‘liberty, property and prosperity’. Moreover, this “worst illiterate”, in my perspective, is the positive-liberalist or the obedient voter, who doesn't hear, doesn't speak, nor participates in the events. S/he doesn't know the cost of life, the value of liberty, and the pleasure of owning the property.  This “worst illiterate” is so stupid that s/he is proud and swells the chest saying that s/he hates politics and economics. The “disarmed imbecile” doesn't know that, from his political ignorance and economic avoidance is born the fascistic entity called Government, in its own society.  

Therefore,

To give a man his life but deny him his liberty is to take from him all that makes his life worth living. To give him his liberty but take from him the property which is the fruit and badge of his liberty is to still leave him a slave.

None, except yourself, can set your conscience free. Many times the chains that can set us free are more mental than physical. Therefore, think liberty than mentalizing socialism. It is only the spirit of liberty that helps the human being to own its life, body and property.

Can there be Liberty in so-called Liberal India?

Link : http://indianlibertarians.org/2013/04/05/can-there-be-liberty-in-so-called-liberal-india/

 

Foreign Policies and International Relations v/s Libertarianism

admin Tuesday April 9, 2013
The so-called “anarchic International system” is empirically and structurally the representational as well as functional dynamics of neo-imperialism which do not only requires the enticement of correction in it, according to my perspective, but also got to mechanically dissolve the organic principles of “supranationality and global institutionalism” that contemporarily facilitates the ‘animal spirit’ of socialism and nationalism.

 This, holistically, has not only underestimated the “global voice of Libertarianism” but also seems to be “not giving any fig to the doors of pacifism”. I, peculiarly, point out, from this hypothetically assertive comprehension, that the “State as a primary unit of analysis in the studies of foreign policy, diplomacy and international relations are actually the root cause of all evils”. The faith over “state-sovereignty”, I think, “is not only phony but also disgusting”, in this era of ‘occidental globalism’, which is lynching the very “basic foundation of liberty and individualism”. Thus, the soldiers, under the setup of ‘crony capitalism’, are frequently crossing the borders. Goods do get traded across the ‘protectionist borders’, but without economic freedom and liberty of any individual. Thence, I uniformly call for the libertarians to get more academically inclusive or actively involved by critically demeaning the validity of foreign policies or international relations which in the contemporary scenario is/are not profitable to the mankind.

The conservative-libertarians, I suppose, are nothing but crony-libertarians who under the shade of neo-conservatism have lynched the principles of minarchy and willfully proliferated the predicament across our planet by policing and romancing with the greedy bureaucrats of the State who generally have no basic knowledge about International Relations and Political Economy. Their bank accounts can be measured by the “health of the state” and that is War, which they often account for. On the other side, we have left-libertarians who softly share the sovietic dice by collectivizing the environmentalism. The left-libertarians, in my understanding, have also not accommodated “commerce peace theory” in their myopia. This, rightism and leftism, in the philosophy of libertarianism, are utterly obnoxious and extremely worrying to the benevolence of liberty and individualism. At no cost, the State, whether big or small, must exceed beyond the doctrines of isolationism and interventionism, except in the case of self-defense. And, this is where I uniformly expect the ‘new libertarians’ to check the issue promptly.

Through this exposition, I also intend to call the ‘new libertarians’ to systematically organize themselves by not only expertising in certain areas but also for studying the various studies of social sciences - as since 1970 the so-called behavioral revolution have willfully infused an ‘intellectual revolution’ in this zone. We can be free to circumvent one arena, but aren't free from the consequences of avoiding many areas. With this, the ‘new libertarians’ can also divulge the simplified knowledge and their perspective in the global information society which is obediently controlled by the state-sponsored information asymmetry. The world is unjust and complex, it is – therefore – the moral duty of the ‘new libertarians’ to simplify it and install an order of just and anarchic cooperation. Like the debates in the area of International Relations, the infusion of libertarianistic knowledge in society can happen when our order crushes the statist order via the inter-paradigm debate, fourth debate and fifth debate. I hope the growth of ‘new Libertarians’ should consequently and proportionally beget more advocacy groups and think-tanks in the current order so that the foreign-policies are moulded in the direction of economic freedom. The moment the ‘new libertarians’ conceptualize more number of peaceful trees of economic freedom in the socialist gardens, the political freedom and other liberties pondering over social, cultural and sexual will automatically get linked to this new economic freedom. The accomplishment of economic freedom will not only bless the society with ‘gun ownership’ but will also determine new foreign relations which would be not dysfunctional on the basis of free-market and free-trade. The foreign relations, I think, must be succinctly based on the doctrines of peace, freedom, commercial prosperity and mutual cooperation. This then should not justify entanglement and conscription at any cost. As such costs are in the interests of the State and not of the Individual.

Albeit the libertarianism borrowed some good ideas from Ayn Rand’s Objectivism, but it should be certainly moral for the ‘new libertarians’ to not side with her mentality on promoting civilization or softly siding with non-senses of Israel. Foreign relations, as I said before, should be extensively based on mutual respect and individual freedom. It should not resort to ad hominem of other underdeveloped groups, but should tranquilly approach such groups with the idea of liberty, free-market and free-trade.

To conclusively talk of India’s foreign policy, the bureaucratic policy-makers have terribly failed to guard the idea of “liberalism and freedom” and instead resorted to the conceptualization of “socialism and democracy”. The ‘containment policy’ against India by China and its South Asian allies depict the failure of India’s foreign policy which is constitutionally grounded in the roots of socialism. The only way out of this matrix is to be not dependent on the phony promises of USA, but to infuse libertarianism in the internal and external features of India. The Indian State has failed and will fail to guard its innocent civilians against the foreign attack or nuke attack – therefore – arming Indians and installing ‘new libertarianism’ can assist India’s foreign policy to boost up her levels against any foreign attack. This ‘paradigm shift’ can also alter the ‘collective conservatism of South Asian allies’. Many other illustrations can be easily cited, but the very immediate step I think is the deinstallation of social democracy so that the structural functionality of any nation’s foreign policy avidly moves according to the ‘invisible hands’ of the free-market.

Bother to read? Can there be Liberty in so-called Liberal India? Check the given below link. 

Link: http://indianlibertarians.org/2013/04/05/can-there-be-liberty-in-so-called-liberal-india/

Without liberty, no human being can be at peace. Therefore, “liberty is the lifeblood of human conscience”. Without liberty, slavery becomes inevitable. Choice is yours!

 

Bitcoins: Gambit or Real Deal

admin Sunday April 7, 2013

Whenever there is global economic instability the Forex market becomes the hot war zone for currencies. Almost all currencies come under focus and closely monitored by various people for their performance. The Ministry of Finance of different nations along with their central banks are under pressure during such period to stabilize the currency and take steps towards it. Heated debates between economists, financial experts and politicians on monetary policies becomes a routine topic of discussion in prime time news broadcast. Its only during monetary crisis that the general populace start to pay attention to money and currency. This is the time when people begin to question what is money, what is currency and the role it plays in our lives. Mostly common mistake of the people in general is that they believe money and currency is exactly the same thing. In recent times due to the economic crisis and after the Cyprus crisis; Bitcoins has caught attention of mainstream news and economist. Bitcoins was mostly known within the libertarian circle and usually a part of their discussions. Unlike government controlled central bank issued currencies like the US Dollar, Euro, Japanese Yen, Pound Sterling, Indian Rupees, etc; Bitcoins is a virtual digital currency based on P2P and cryptography technology which is not backed by any government or central bank. In fact Bitcoin is the only non government issued private currency in circulation.  Bitcoins hit an exchange rate of US $147 for 1 Bitcoin recently. This valuation of Bitcoins given by the free market tells us that the demand for Bitcoins is very high and rising. It also shows that the market has accepted it informally as money. The rapidly growing popularity of Bitcoins has generated a lot of curiosity and interest among the general people as well as the economist. "What is Bitcoin" - is the most often asked question by people. It is natural for most of us to get confused with so many views and opinions of it. Moreover for the average person it is difficult to interpret and make sense the technical working of bitcoins with regards to crypto-anarchy and peer-to-peer networking. The economist and financial experts have their own opinions to further complicate the matter for the average person. Thus it will be wise to check the fundamentals of Money and Currency to get a fair bit of idea of Bitcoins.

Money and currency are interchangeable terms. They are at times used to denote money or to denote currency or wealth (capital). For example one can say that they have money in their wallet. What they actually mean is that they have currencies in their wallet in form of banknotes and coins. We also refer wealth as money. For example a person who owns commodities like land, car, cows, horses, warehouse full of wheat, residential building, gold, copper, steel plates etc and may not have any banknotes or coins still we say that person has money. In another case, lets assume there are two people from two different countries and their country uses different banknotes acceptable within their country as money. The two people have banknotes in their respective wallet which will be acceptable locally but not in each others country. For example a person residing in India where Indian Rupee is the national currency of India will consider Indian Rupee as money where as another person residing in Sudan will consider Sudanese Pound as money. It is quite possible that Sudanese Pound may not be recognized as currency in India and not acceptable as money.  In other case like that of the US dollar, it may be universally accepted as a form of money. A Zimbabwe Dollar may not be considered as money anywhere in the world and instead be seen as completely worthless piece of paper. These differences in valuation of currencies are not accidental but natural phenomenon which is studied extensively and explained in theory by economists.

Money is a commonly used medium of exchange. People who want to procure goods and services to meet their ends often have to trade. They can exchange their goods directly as well as indirectly. In case of direct exchange, for example if you are trading 10 grams gold coin of 99% purity for 750 Kg of rice then in this case gold serves as the money to buy rice. For the rice seller, rice served as the money to buy gold. Direct exchange can take place only if they have matching preferences and suitable goods for the trade to take place. Here we can also say that gold and rice are currencies as well. 1 gram of gold has a purchasing power of 75 Kg of rice and the other way round. Direct exchange is also called the barter system. Assume another scenario where the rice vendor wish to buy gold but the gold vendor doesn't want to exchange his gold for rice and asks for a certain measure of wheat instead. The rice vendor then has to find a wheat vendor who is willing to trade wheat against rice. Once he is successful in doing so then only he can trade it with the gold vendor for the gold which he intends to buy. This is called indirect exchange where wheat served as a medium of exchange for the rice vendor to procure gold. In indirect exchange goods are purchased indirectly, with the help of another good, the medium of exchange. Gold, silver and other metals like copper and nickel were used as a medium of exchange for other goods as they were readily accepted across the globe. These metals were mined and sent to mints to be molded into coins of different dimensions. This is why we had ancient domestic and international trade where exchange of goods took against a specific number of metal coins. Prices of goods and services were quoted as the number of coins the goods will be sold at. The differences in dimension, weight and purity of the metals between two different coins of the same composition, especially those molded in different dimensions, were determined and the parity of exchange thus calculated. The use of goods as money is called as commodity money. The unit of money is denoted in currency.

I will quote from excerpts from Mises Wiki.

 

In the history of mankind, a great variety of commodities — cattle, shells, nails, tobacco, cotton, copper, silver, gold, stone wheels, and so on, have been used as media of exchange. In the most developed societies, the precious metals have eventually been preferred to all other goods because of their physical characteristics (scarcity, durability, divisibility, distinct look and sound, homogeneity through space and time, malleability, and beauty).

For a good to become money, it must have the physical properties and be considered valuable by itself. The price of a good, when employed only for nonmonetary purposes, is a good starting point to estimate its price for use as a money. Should the good stop being money, it will still have value due its other uses.

Historically, there were often several types of money used concurrently and for different purposes. For example, silver tended to be widespread in daily use, while gold served for larger and international transactions.

The emergence of money happens through a gradual process, in the course of which more and more market participants, each for himself, decide to use one commodity rather than others in their indirect exchanges. Thus the historical selection of gold, silver, and copper was not made through some sort of a social contract or convention. Rather, it resulted from the spontaneous convergence of many individual choices, a convergence that was prompted through the objective physical characteristics of the precious metals. Money selected in the free market. i.e. money that comes into use by the voluntary cooperation of acting persons, is also called natural money.

Ludwig Von Mises says:

 

Money is merely the commonly used medium of exchange; it plays only an intermediary role.

In time we know that commodity money was replaced by paper money. We can easily reason that it wouldn't be easy to carry around a huge pile of coins when we go out shopping and we can say this to be a big disadvantage in use of metal coins as money.  This gave rise to institutions where you could keep your coins and get a paper receipts of various denominator for the coins. Anyone can get back the deposited coins by producing the paper receipt. This institution was called as bank and the paper receipt called a banknote. The banknote could be traded for goods and the banknote could be redeemed for the deposited metal in any branch of the bank. These banknotes were type of a legal tender or a promissory note. On the Indian Rupee you'll find a promissory clause by the Central Government of Indian as "I promise to pay the bearer a sum of X rupees" which meant that the banknote in the past could have been produced to demand a certain unit of gold to which the banknote was backed with. These paper receipts were called as money substitutes.

In recent times the paper money which used to be money substitutes for gold or silver became fiat paper money. Unlike the coins (or paper substitutes which are the same thing as they can be substituted) which has an intrinsic value; fiat currency doesn't have any intrinsic value.  Intrinsic value is the market value of the constituent metal within a coin. For example there are low denominator coins like 1 anna, 1 paisa, 2 paise, 10 paise, etc coins no more in circulation. However the metal constituent in the coin still has a market value. We can melt the metal and make pipes or bars or rods out of it and sell them in the market. Fiat money is in a wider sense any money declared to be legal tender by government fiat (ie law). In a narrower sense, fiat money is an intrinsically useless good declared to be legal tender by government fiat. In other words the currency that we use today is simply pieces of paper which has value because we have faith in it and the government declared it as a legal tender.

Investopedia explains fiat money as:

 

Currency that a government has declared to be legal tender, despite the fact that it has no intrinsic value and is not backed by reserves. Historically, most currencies were based on physical commodities such as gold or silver, but fiat money is based solely on faith.

Most of the world's paper money is fiat money. Because fiat money is not linked to physical reserves, it risks becoming worthless due to hyperinflation. If people lose faith in a nation's paper currency, the money will no longer hold any value.

Today the Indian Rupee is a fiat currency just like every other government issued currencies of the world. We'll discuss money and currency in detail in other future articles as it is beyond the scope of this article. However I would extend the discussion with few excerpts from the Mises Wiki:

 

Money did not and never could begin by some arbitrary social contract, or by some government agency decreeing that everyone has to accept the tickets it issues. Even coercion could not force people and institutions to accept meaningless tickets that they had not heard of or that bore no relation to any other existing money.

If anyone could produce paper money on their own, without backing by an underlying commodity, a hyperinflation would soon follow. Free entry into the note-production business must be restricted, and a money monopoly must be established. Fiat money can be only established via the development of money substitutes (paper titles to commodity money) - but only fraudulently and only at the price of economic inefficiencies.

If a state forces its citizens to use the money and pay taxes with it, it becomes universally desirable because no one wants to be in prison. The fiat money can be exchanged for specific goods, such as the ability to escape aggressive violence.

Unlike commodity money or money substitute receipts, there is no limit to the amount of fiat money that can be released for circulation. An economic system based on fiat currency will not have any upper limit to the volume of money or currency in circulation thus such economic system will be inflationary by nature. The government simply prints money and spends it until the point there is hyperinflation and the faith in value of the currency comes in question. The process of printing money and injecting the new money into the economy via easy credits with very lower interest rates and easy loans as well as by the means of government spending is called inflation. After a certain point when the purchasing power of currency decreases and prices of all goods rise its called hyperinflation. The Zimbabwean currency became defunct due to hyperinflation. The Zimbabwean government controlled central bank simply printed money till the economy collapsed. Remember that all Zimbabwean's are billionaires in terms of currency but without money or capital wealth in real sense. Therefore they are one of the poorest billionaires in the world. Today most of the world currencies including the US dollar is facing the problem of hyperinflation and stagflation. The inflationary practices of the government has resulted into a great recession which refuses to go.

Now we have a fair idea about different type of money and currencies we should start to look at Bitcoins. Bitcoins if we see doesn't fit into any of the above types of money or currency. Indeed Bitcoin is a new type of money or currency and the most recent one. Bitcoin is purely electronic money. It is a form of fiat currency. Bitcoins are not simply generated at will but there are complex algorithms based on energy and time functions which allows new bitcoins to be mined. Thus Bitcoins follows the concept of production of money. Like other currencies a bitcoin is divisible. One bitcoin is subdivided into 100 million smaller units called satoshi. It can be transacted as we transact other currencies digitally. Unlike other fiat currencies which do not have an upper limit on how many units of currency or the volume of money that will be in circulation, Bitcoins has a fixed hard limit of  21 million bitcoins which will be reached during the year 2140. There is a steady limit on the number of new bitcoins generated by the system. 25 bitcoins are generated in 10 minute block. Thus like gold, silver and other metals which are traditionally used as commodity money, bitcoins are scarce to find. Unlike the current fiat currencies, Bitcoin won't loose its purchasing power. In fact due to the limited imposed it will behave as a deflating currency whose purchasing power will gradually increase. Like every fiat currency, Bitcoin derives its value from faith and not law or that of being a legal tender unlike other fiat paper money issued by the government. Bitcoins are generally abbreviated as BTC like the US Dollar is abbreviated as USD or Indian Rupee abbreviated as INR. The Bitcoin.org states:

 

Bitcoin uses peer to peer technology to operate with no central authority; managing transactions and issuing Bitcoins are carried out collectively by the network. Through many of its unique properties, Bitcoin allows exciting uses that could not be covered by any previous payment systems.

Bitcoins have opened the door for private currency. In fact Austrian Economists had always believed that private currency will re-emerge and break the fiat currency monopoly. F.A. Hayek predicted the emergence of private money. He was extremely radical for free banking and private money. Hayek otherwise was pretty mild in his other views.

Hayek argues that, if only government obstacles were removed, the free market would provide the optimal quantity (and variety!) of monetary products. Just as the forces of competition lead to low prices and superior quality in every other line, so too would competition in the "fiat money industry" lead to monies that were infinitely better than their government-produced counterparts. For example, the private monies would be far more stable in their purchasing power, would be harder to counterfeit, and would be available in more convenient denominations.

Bitcoins has proved Hayek right. Many Austrian Economists as well as economists from other school of thought were skeptical about Hayek's views and if fiat money without being backed up by anything valuable or an assurance can never take off the ground. Bitcoins did that. It seems that Bitcoins took off due to instability in almost all currencies of the world since 2008, the debt crisis and political crisis.  All government and central banks implemented the same policies. It has become a trend for almost all nations central banks to follow what the US Central Bank FED does. Moreover the Keynesian Economic theories prescribe inflation as a solution to most economic problems. Thus there left no fiat currency which was not highly inflated. Inflation destroys the purchasing power of money and savings of people. Normally people invest in commodity money like gold and silver whose prices remain stable for saving over time. This is the reason gold and silver are considered precious metals and are considered as money or wealth for thousands of years. Their purchasing power has remained more or less the same over the years. In other words gold and silver are used hedge against risks of hyperinflation destroying the purchasing power of fiat currencies. Even the central banks purchase and reserve stocks of gold and silver to hedge the risk. The government interventions to control the flow of gold and silver, market speculation, derivative market, bulk purchasing and dumping of gold by central banks, etc brought instability to the prices of gold and silver as well. The soundness in price of gold and silver diminished. Bitcoins remained the only form of money which offered the advantages of both fiat currencies and sound commodity money at the moment.

Does that mean Bitcoin is the best currency that man has come out till date? From Austrian Economics perspective which is the best type of currency is subjective. Bitcoins presently do not have any competitor of its kind. We cannot say for certain that other forms of digital currencies based on different mechanism will not come up in future. The Bitcoin technology will certainly be tested for its efficiency and capabilities. Software are imperfect. It might have security vulnerabilities or technical limitations which we do not know now.  This might open the door way for newer form of digital currencies to come up. As Bitcoin is kind of fiat currency its value is simply based on faith. There will be many who won't have faith in Bitcoins. Thus a different medium of exchange needs to be employed for trading with those who do not accept Bitcoins. The state never wants to give up its monopoly over money. With the rise of demand and popularity of Bitcoin we will see government intervention rising to regain its control. If there are critical bugs in the algorithm or if hackers exploits a crack in the Bitcoin system then the faith put on Bitcoins will suffer. There is no certainty that the faith might completely wear off and Bitcoin will be worthless as it has no intrinsic value of its own. It is hence advisable to understand the risk-rewards of Bitcoins and go ahead accordingly. From the Austrian economics perspective all subjective valuation lies on the person. To use Bitcoin or not is simply upon you. We can simply attempt to understand and describe a particular phenomena but the decision on how to act and what to choose lies entirely on you.