Reason for Liberty » India

India growing Rich

Unpretentious Diva — Sat, 07 Aug 2010 19:59:38 +0000

The number of Indian families earning about $4500 to $22000 (Rs2,00000, Rs10,00000) per anum, which constitutes the middle class as per the World Bank’s definition of middle class in 1995-96 was 4.5 million, the number of such households grew to 0.7 million in 2001-02. Now India has 28.4 million such families by 2009-10. One can say that the Indian families are growing rich, from poor or depraved families; they are traversing towards the middle income group range. Irrespective of the higher inflation rates, one can justifiably state that the number of high-income households in India has exceeded the number of low-income households and similar is the assertion of National Council of Applied Economic Research (NCAER).

Can India achieve richness?

The first issue is about the term India, how can a geographical region grow rich? Individuals in that region may surely gain prosperity but the region in itself is not able to achieve richness. Another issue is, even if India represents its people and not the geographical region, then how can a group or collective society or state grow rich? To grow rich is a Human Action, and a Human Action can be performed only by individual actors, only individuals possess ends and goals and the means to achieve those goals. A group or a collective society or a state cannot act, it even cannot decide. In fact a society cannot exist without the actions of individual members .” This certainly means that “India growing Rich” is a metaphor. India cannot grow rich, it cannot be poor, what is being said is that the number of individual families that are now in a richly or prosperous state is increasing. Obviously, it has nothing to do with the society or state or country that is represented by India. Yet, it certainly has a lot to do with the freedom individuals have in the Indian society and how is it influencing their person conditions.
This follows that although a society cannot exist independently without the actions of Individuals, the individuals and their actions can be affected by the society, state or country. That is, if a person in India or his family is growing rich, it is but obvious the result of his hard work and talent, but if a person is living in dire conditions, one of the many reason behind it can be the restrictions or the influence of the society or country he is living in. But how can a country restrict anybody from being rich or poor? Since country cannot act, it cannot restrict, nor can a society restrict. Yet, the “government” representing a society or community or country can surely restrict the individuals it represents. Yet again, what is government? It is a group of some individuals that take decisions and enforces their decisions and policies over the population of their state. When someone says that “government act” what he means is to say that certain individuals are in a certain relationship with other individuals and act in a way that they and the other individuals recognize as “governmental’ .” The issue is very important to understand. To explain it further, take the issue of tobacco. Indian government pays farmers to grow tobacco; on the other hand, it forces all the companies selling tobacco products to include anti-smoking, anti-tobacco-chewing advertisements on their products. Both actions are contradictory, one may say government should make up their mind and take a consistent action. The thing is, government has no mind, it cannot think, it cannot act. Rather, there are individuals, politicians, judges, bureaucrats, etc. who thinks and take actions.
Thus, even a government cannot act; ultimately the individuals only can take actions; only individuals can have ends and the means to achieve those ends.

Is India really growing rich?

While talking about NCAER results, Martin Ravallion suggest that all these estimates by NCAER far exceed the likely number of people in India who are not poor by US standards. At the start, he simply ignores the importance of Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) and blatantly states that “I will not say that someone has entered the Western middle class until the person has reached the US poverty line” . Obviously it is not so easy to understand that a person cannot buy a Reynolds’s ball pen in Rs 5 (approximately $0.1) but one can buy the same ball pen in India at that price. Irrespective of that fact, one cannot say that NCAER’s research is free of errors.

Why India is growing rich?

Look Through My Eyes

Now when I have explained that India cannot grow rich, Individuals and their families certainly can grow rich if government (some other ‘individuals’) may not restrict them, I should talk about the current phase of change in the status of individuals in Indian sub-continent. Why are Indian individuals enjoying this progress? Are the new generation of India much better, intelligent or harder working then the individuals of subcontinent before 1991? What has caused this economic progress? Is it the government (the group of ‘ruling individuals’) that has brought this progress?
The fact that India (Indian government, a few individuals who thought they could decide the fate of all individuals in India and who did) deprived itself of many free market benefits for more than 40 years during the Cold War while it flirted with political “neutrality” between East and West, but sought to build much closer economic ties with the Soviet Union. It is only since the collapse of the U.S.S.R. that Indian government started realizing its failure and allowing individuals to act for their prosperity by their own.
The question is, if government is allowing individuals to act for their own prosperity, is it doing any good? Or was it bad when government (or the group of some individuals) restricted individuals to pursue their prosperity and happiness? It is undeniable fact that with the emergence of free market and libertarian approach in Indian sub-continent, Indian individuals are now much freer to think about their ends and to act to achieve those ends. Since they can think for their prosperity and they can act to achieve it too, they are becoming rich.

Is Government Facilitating this Prosperity?

All the welfare and redistribution attempts of Indian government failed in 1991 and it accepted the defeat of Nehru’s centralized socialistic system. After 1991, India accepted the path of decentralization and government started shedding the so-called responsibility of making Indians prosperous and rich. Privatization is the name of mantra; freedom is the message of prosperity.
Obviously, a government (set of ruling individuals) can hinder the progress of individuals, they can legally and coercively ban, restrict and punish individuals from trying to get rich by legislating some senseless national laws, social contracts etc. But when a government realizes its failure and starts decentralizing, allowing individuals to live at their own, then one cannot say that it is the government which is facilitating the prosperity of individuals.

Conclusion:

Individuals in Indian sub-continent are certainly growing rich, they are now freer and hence more able to grab the opportunities to use their mind and act to pursue their goals, their happiness and hence they are rich. No governmental group or political party can take the fame of making Indians rich. On the other hand, Indian government should be blamed for keeping Indian individuals under poverty for so long. With the current pace of anti-state trend in Indian sub-continent, as India will enjoy more privatization, decentralization, free market, economic, religious and political freedom, Indian individuals will attain more freedom.
These facts strongly suggest that all the welfare and income redistribution talks of Indian socialistic groups are futile. Lesser governmental control on individuals means lesser poverty, No governmental control over Individuals means No Poverty. Poverty will vanish in a no-government-state.

Why is India poor?

Renegade Division — Thu, 03 Jun 2010 22:13:13 +0000

Photo by Jeff Belmonte, available under a Creative Commons Attribution license

It is probably an often thought question, but rarely answered correctly by most of the people. What makes a country like India poorer than a country like say America? I have tried to answer this question since I was a kid, then as an adult.
Lets see, most people might answer to that question as “India is poor because it lacks so and so ”, the effect being something India does not have because its poor, and US has because its richer, and not a cause of Indian poverty. For example, some people might answer
“India is poor because it lacks infrastructure western countries have”, or
“India is poor because of lack of education among people”, or
“India is poor because its very corrupt, and it has politicians who manipulate people etc etc”.
The problem here is simple, almost all these answers are effects, India does not have the infrastructure of western countries because India is poor, it doesn’t need that infrastrucutre, you cannot spend Rs 500 million per year on a road which brings per user cost is Rs 5,000 per month, and the average salary of people using that road is Rs 10,000 per month. Why not? Because if you did build a luxury road like that for people this poor, you are wasting resources more than you are creating them. When India becomes richer better infrastructure will follow, even if govt is the only entity building it, they will have more money to spend on infrastructure. You cannot create prosperity by creating one effect and hoping other effect will follow.
Similarly, the stuff about Indian people being educated, well if you are going to work on a construction site for all your life(someone has to work there), there is no point in spending so much money on your education which could have gone towards creating more job opportunities for you. By trying to create this effect, by educating 100,000 workers who will be working on manufacturing all their lives, and then ending up with having jobs for only 60% of them isn’t really a better outcome.
A bit matured people who understand how things worked, they will come to the conclusion that India is poor because it has less money than America, therefore India is poor and America is richer. But then that was incorrect too when you will find out that Indian govt has the power to print any amount of money possible. Why can’t Indian govt print more money, give some to everyone and make everybody richer. Apparently its not that easy as it may sound, when money supply is increased, prices of commodities rise soon thereafter. So even if poor people are given a lot of money, that will just raise the prices of the various commodities they might buy thereby bringing them back to same level of poverty as before(more or less).
I know a lot of people who know the correct answer to the question stated in the title. India is poorer than US because it has less capital than latter, and capital isn’t the same thing as money.

What is Capital

So the question comes, what is ‘capital’ and how is it different from money? To understand it we must understand first what is money. Money is nothing but a medium of exchange, we don’t really intend to consume money, we only keep money because everybody else accepts it and then we can acquired the final resource which we really intend to consume.
Capital is essentially any commodity or goods, or even service, which is used to hold value across time. In simple words, if you do not consume a good or a commodity, but only keep it for later consumption then that good serves as capital. Because in most of the cases we keep money for the future consumption therefore money is the most common form of capital, but if you bought a car which you intended to start using only 2 years later then that car is your capital(although I don’t see any reason why you would want to do that, but that’s beside the point).
When I say India has less capital than US, what does that really mean? Does that mean Americans can defer their present consumption more than Indians can? If we look at savings rate of both the countries, Indians can definitely beat Americans savings rate hands down, so shouldn’t that mean Indians must have more capital than Americans? The truth is, America has a lot more capital buildup than India, therefore despite of not deferring a lot of their present consumption for the future one, they can still manage to create more ‘future resources’ than India.
For example an American family may only save 10% of their savings for future or invest 10% of their income for future, but because the total amount of capital they have is much more than an average Indian family which might save about 40% of their income, their capital results in more consumer goods than what an Indian family’s capital results in.
Simply put, in order to be as rich as America, India will have to accumulate as much capital as America has. Artificially achieving the same literacy rate as US by govt spending will not make India as rich as US, because people won’t have as many jobs to do. Building an infrastructure through government spending will also not make India as rich as US as it won’t be worth spending so much on infrastructure when there isn’t enough capital to put that infrastructure to proper use.
This may be a very simple thing to say, because its like saying ‘in order to be rich you need to acquire a lot of bank balance’, which sounds like common sense, but in this case its like most people seem to think that if you take thousands of dollars of loan for education, you will automatically become rich, or if you buy a bigger house, you will become automatically rich.

How do we build up more capital?

Lets first take an example of Robinson Crusoe who got stranded on an island. He catches fishes everyday from 8AM to 5PM and eats them. Since he just landed on the island, he catches these fishes by hand and he is able to catch 25 fishes everyday. Since Crusoe came from a modern society he realizes that he can build a net, and that will enable him to catch a lot more fishes. Unfortunately, he also realizes that he cannot just blink and wish a fishing net, he must build it, and making a fishing net requires 5 days of his work. The problem in front of Crusoe is that if he starts to work for 5 full days to build that net, then he won’t be able to catch any fish therefore he will starve to death.

Photo by mastrobiggo, available under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike license

Crusoe in this scenario faces the problem of lack of capital. He needs capital to sustain himself until he extends the structure of production(that is from using only hands to catch fish, he uses hands to build a fishing net, which he uses to catch fishes. He realizes that by building that fishin net he will be able to catch 300 fishes everyday.
So Crusoe has 2 options, he can either:
a) Consume only 20 fishes everyday, and store the 5 unconsumed fishes; Keep on doing this for 20 days, which will accumulate him 100 fishes, which are good enough for him to sustain himself for five days he won’t be able to work.
b) Catch only 20 fishes each day and spend that extra time in building the net, so he will be spreading his 5 days of work, over 20 days.
In either of the two cases Crusoe has deferred his present consumption of 5 fishes everyday so that after he builds the net he is now able to produce and consume a LOT more fishes everyday. He can either catch 300 fishes and maybe consume them all, or make more dishes out of them, etc etc, or he could continue to catch only 25 fishes everday, work less and have more leisure time, and spending the remaining time in working on art, literature, maybe music etc.
India is exactly like Crusoe without the fishing net, and America is exactly like Crusoe with a fishing net. Because its easier for America to produce a lot without giving up a lot of present goods, America has a lot of time to spend on art, literature, music, etc. This is the exact reason why American atheletes and sportsmen win so many medals in Olympics, they have the disposable income and time to train themselves for sports, whereas in India we still spend most of our time catching fishes by hand.
In order to build more capital, you require two things:
a) People should be willing to put a lot of present goods for later consumption
b) When they put their present goods for later consumption, nothing should reduce or steal away their capital from them
The first task isn’t really that difficult for India, since we already have high savings rate. The second task is actually the most difficult task in India. You may ask, why? The answer is simple because the way we understand reality, we don’t think people should be allowed to accumulate capital.
Let me elaborate what I meant by nothing should reduce or steal away the capital from people who are deferring their present consumption for future. In the above example of Crusoe, lets say Crusoe’s fishes got rotten because they weren’t stored properly, so his capital has been destroyed, now to achieve the same earlier result he will have to build his savings again.
Take another scenario, lets say Man Friday, is another cast away, who drifted to the other part of the Island, he also catches fishes by hand, but he is able to catch only 10 fishes because he is not that good with catching fishes. When Crusoe was saving 5 fishes everyday, Man Friday decried that Crusoe was being unfair and hoarding fishes, also Crusoe being more dexterous with fishing, must feed Man Friday some of his fishes. So everyday Man Friday raids Crusoe’s extra fishes and consumes them in the name of making the society more equal. In this case again Crusoe’s capital has been depleted, and he will never be able to build that fishing net, and although Man Friday and Crusoe will be a bit more equal, they will remain poor. In fact soon Crusoe will realize that he has no incentive to really starve himself by 5 fishes, so he will either consume all 25 fishes or will catch only 5 fishes each day.
So how does capital get depleted, or stolen away, or reduced from the person who is building it? The answer is simple, because the way most Indians think, and always thought, was that we cannot allow one man to have all the wealth of the society, even if he built it all. So we like Man Friday in the above example, continously rob Crusoes of the Indian society, through taxation, which ‘we’ consider perfectly ‘justified’, or through a fiat currency and fractional reserve banking system, about which most of us don’t even care, its left for economics students who were educated by the western economists who don’t even understand how capital works.
What ends up happening is that we never grow rich. It was only until 1991, when Indian economy was liberalized and a lot more capital accumulation was allowed, and since then we have seen a LOT of economic progress, but still most people do not see or understand the function of capital, for them, capital means something to do with capitalism(which is technically correct, capitalism is a system where capital reigns means of production), and under capitalism ‘rich grow richer and poor go poorer’.

A society with more capital takes care of its poor better

Photo by Daveblog, available under Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works License

Lets look back at the previous example of Crusoe, had Man Friday allowed Crusoe to build his net, Crusoe would have been able to produce a lot more fishes everyday, and then Man Friday could then provide Crusoe with some other services, in exchange for his fishes. Lets just say all Man Friday is good at is dancing, and creating stories and telling them passionately, since they both are stranded on an island, Crusoe might value this entertainment service a lot, so Crusoe works all day catching 300 fishes, and gives 100 fishes to Man Friday in exchange of Man Friday’s entertainment services.
Had Man Friday stressed on equality, all the way along, Crusoe’s net wouldn’t have been built, and Crusoe would have remained relatively rich(because he caught 25 fishes everyday and consumed 20), and Man Friday would have remained poor(because he caught only 10 fishes everyday and was able to consume only 15). Please note that in the society with more capital(ie, when Crusoe built a net), Crusoe was consuming 200 fishes everday, which is almost double of what Man Friday was consuming(100 fishes), and socialists decry that rich has gotten richer in capitalism and poor poorer, but Man Friday in the society with more capital is much more well fed and richer than Man Friday in society with less capital. This is exactly what we see in America and in India, a poor in America is still richer than even the average guy of India. All this is only facilitated if we stop believing in the redistribution of wealth and start allowing building up of capital.

Golden Coinage in India

Unpretentious Diva — Thu, 29 Apr 2010 10:49:24 +0000

India was one of the earliest issuers of coins since circa 6th century BC. Indians never used paper currency before 1770, when the Bank of Hindustan under British Empire. The General Bank of Bengal and Bihar, which was established by Warren Hastings , also issued paper currency in 1773. It should be noted that Indian currency is known as Rupees since long. Rupee is derived from a Sanskrit word “Raupya”, which means silver, the silver coin was always the currency of India. With the discovery of vast amounts of Silver in U.S and other European colonies, the relative value of silver reduced a lot in comparison to gold, that incident is known as “the fall of rupee” .
With the fall of silver in 1873, Indian Currency Committee suggested British India government to adopt for gold standard and in 1898 British government instead of adopting a Gold Exchange Standard, pegged Indian rupee with British sterling.
After Independence, Indian government started minting Indian coins (rupees); Indians thus never got a gold standard for representing their money
Now since last 63 years, Indians have so much used to the government issued currency, cycles of inflation and depression and always increasing price rise, that even talking about gold standard and private coinage seems to be impossible. Yet, since Indians were in habit of using private monometallic coins in past, it is imperative to discuss the issue of private coinage. Taking the premises of Freedom for everybody and the Self-Governance (Swaraj), which has been extolled by the Indians as a basic Mantra of life, let us examine the case of private currency carefully.

How the Private coinage will work?

The private coinage will work just like any other commodity (say mobile phones, or jewellery or wrist watches). Minters will produce coins of different shapes, sizes and weight according to the desires and demand of his customers. The free competition of the market will set the price of the coins of the minter. Second issue is about the trouble that the coins may create when weighed or evaluated at every deal or bargain. It is true that it would be difficult to evaluate the purity of gold coins every time a transaction would be made. To solve that issue, the minters will stamp the coins and guaranty the weight and purity of the coin. Private minters can guarantee the coins just like the government do. The profit will be, when government mints, there is no competition for government to be truthful, alert and honest, it is monopoly of government over minting coins, but when the private minters will guarantee their coins, their guarantee will weigh more because if the private minter will cheat, he will loose his market and consumers to other honest minter. Just like a government paper currency or coin holds the governmental promise to pay the bearer of that note an amount equal to the price of that paper currency or coin, the coin of private minters will also hold the promise from the minter that he would pay an amount of gold equal to be mentioned on the gold coin of his brand.
People against the idea of private currency will say that it would increase the chances of frauds. Same people never object to the miserable record of the governmental frauds, swindles and mismanagement. Every time the government issues stimulus to a particular industry, or forgives the loans of some conglomerate by explaining that it is working for social profits, the government actually is committing a fraud against the general public. Every time a person faces the devaluation of his savings in governmental currency because of extreme price rise and inflation, it is the example of regular fraudulent and untrustworthy behavior of the government regarding paper currency issuance and minting coinage. In case of private minters of gold coins, the chances of inflation and abrupt price hikes will lessen to minimum. More over, the free market competition for consumer satisfaction, the various minters will compete to be more honest and better customer service providers. The more a particular private coinage minting agency will be honest and better product and service provider, the more will be its consumer base and profits. Thus, in free market private coinage system, the competition for profits would be competition for honesty and consumer satisfaction. In addition, the problem of fake currency will also be eliminated because each private coinage agency would try to defend their brands by their own and the government also will be able to devote all its energy to safeguard the private minters against duplication and fake currency. In case of private coinage, one can trust that the government will prevent and punish frauds. The integrity of private open market operators cannot be discarded in favor of government monopoly, because in case of monopoly, there is no need for the government to be honest, but in case of private free market operators, to be honest is prerequisite for gaining any profit and healthy share of consumers.
Furthermore, whole market works on guarantee of standards. A medicine store sells a tablet of aspirin of mentioned weight and dosage, a butter seller sells packed butter slices of mentioned grams of butter. The buyer trusts these guarantees, and they prove to be true. In a case when a person buys a product with a certain warranty and guarantee and somehow the product fails to prove the standard mentioned, than in most cases, he gets a replacement for the ill-manufactured product. That is, even if by mistake a product of a company fails to fulfill the standards demanded by the customer and provided by the manufacturer, then either it pays back the money of the customer or replaces the product with new and better one. Market of mobile sets, or laptops or packed meat, butter or cheese, or other things does not fail even though government does not hold a monopoly on any of the products. Thus, we can trust that the customers of a private minter will be safe against any possible fraud because of the presence of other competitors of the minter in market. The minter’s customers themselves will be keenly alert about the weight and fineness of the coins just as they remain while buying and using other commodities.

The problem of wear and tear of currency

The current government regulated currency, paper notes and coins holds no worth in themselves apart from the governor’s pledge to pay the bearer of the note or coin, a definite amount of money. The value of money obviously keeps going low and lower because of inflation and price rise. Along with this, the paper currency issued by government often suffers wear and tear causing further loss of money. Most of the governmental coins are eroded or torn out and government keeps forcing the usage of same old notes and coins. The old rag-tagged coins and paper notes are to be considered of the same value as of a fresh note or coin. By doing so, the government actually forces a certain type of price control over the old paper notes and coins and provide them the equal price as that of newer notes and coins. Because of this, the older coins and notes are overvalued, while the new notes and coins suffer undervaluation. All this amounts to nothing but mal-investment. Everybody loves to circulate the older worn out coins and paper currency while they have a tendency to keep newer notes and coins safe.
Consider the case of free market where minting of coins is not a monopoly of government. Assume that there are gold coins of 10grams well circulated in market. After a few years of constant usage, the coins may suffer wear and tear and lets say that they weigh only 9 grams of gold after 10 years (assume). In a free market, a coin that has been reduced from 10 grams of gold to 9 grams will not be overvalued and it will gain only the price of 9 grams. Obviously, nobody would like to use the 9 grams coins at the price of 10 grams of gold, hence the worn out coins will be driven out of the market, or they may be used at reduced price. Thus, nobody would be deceived by the forced insistence of overvaluation to the older coins. This will avoid malinvestment. To solve out the problem of wear-tear of the coins, the private coin minters can either set a time limit on their stamped guarantees of weight or agree to provide a new coin in exchange of every old coin with reduced weight. Thus, there will not be any compulsory standardization of currency, which is a feature of monopoly of government.
Conclusion:
Since long governments have tried to control the currency circulation in market so that they can restrict and control the progress and prosperity of citizens. Yet, from time to time, private bankers have issued their own minted coins (Know more about Private Coinage and Good Money)) . The gold standard with privatization of issuing currency and minting coins will not only end the monopoly of government over currency, which is the major reason of acute price rise and inflation, but also it will avoid any chance of fraud as the free market will tend the virtue of more honest and better services for gaining more consumer base and high profits. In addition, if coin minting is privatized, the government can also try to serve the public by ensuring security against any sort of fraud. In any case, privatization of currency would be a much better option than the monopoly of government over currency.

Consumerism is a Boon for Human Development

Unpretentious Diva — Mon, 19 Apr 2010 07:11:27 +0000

Consumerism is the principle of Free Market, which states, “free choice of consumer should rule the market, or, the consumer decides the economic structure of the society”. Producers and providers bring their products to the market and make it certain that consumers, the public, may gain enough knowledge about their product so that, if the consumer decides that the particular product is good, they may buy it.
To spread the knowledge of their product, producers advertise and apply proper marketing strategies. The consumer remains free either to accept the product and buy it, or to reject it at certain price.
Now days, producers are delivering good attractive services, better comfortable products and advanced technologies in the market. Some people claim that all this advancement is redundant and nobody needs it.

Do we want better technology, superior products and services that are more effective?

Human desires are infinite and so is his potential. We want better medical services, information technology, better telecommunication services, better heating and cooling devices in our homes and office rooms. We desire better toothpastes, toothbrushes, better hair oils and shampoos, better and more verities of food, wine, better cleaning products, better cell phone, better ipods, better televisions, better laptops, better internet, we all want better and improved.
It is our want that drives the market to innovate and provide new technologies, services and products.
We want better and faster vehicles, satellite phones, and internet access. We need clean and filtered water, we need lifts and elevators, we need homes, we need security we need better services, we want more options.

Consumerism makes it possible. We are receiving everything we wish for and the market is providing them. Free market is nothing but a group of billions of people working together with free will, innovating and inventing further for the improvement, free market is also a system that joins billions of people together, yet provide full freedom for each individual to live for himself, at his own conditions with his own efforts. Nobody is pulling legs of other to rise higher. Market competition is nothing but a constant try of innovators and entrepreneurs to learn and satisfy the hearts and minds of consumers. Consumers are undoubtedly the kings of free market.
It is all consumerism, to desire better and to have full freedom to make one’s dream come true.
The socialists call it devilish, they say people do not need improvement, they say materialistic quest for making life better is futile. They say all this improvement in standards of life is waste. They ignore the real effect of all these changes. While blaming consumerism and crying anti-consumerism songs, they just hide away the evidences of improvement in human conditions.

Since the start of civilization, wise people are trying to search a self-sustaining system that may serve the common person rather than just the aristocrats and the rulers.
Free market is the quest for that riddle. Free market provide the system through which, the billions of unplanned desires and wants, billions of unorganized and independent economic choices succeeds in creating a self-sustaining system of production and provision to satisfy and serve everyone.
Now socialists, anti-consumerists decries against this system, they say consumerism provides too much for too many, they say it is not necessary and it is wastage. They say people does not need these things, they are mere senseless materialistic wants.
The question is, are the consumers buying those things that are not required? Who dictates the difference between a need and a want? Some religious guru, or some socialist dictator?

One’s desperate need is fulfilled by Other’s want for Leisure

The fact, which makes the free market sustainable, is “the need of a person is fulfilled as a resulting effect of fulfilment of other’s want. That is, wants and needs are interlinked in a free market.

Shiksha India CII

A common example of this fact is, the Shiksha India program run by Confederation of Indian Industry . CII is a non-governmental and non profit organization managed by Shiksha India trust. Shiksha India works closely with schools and institutions across India and helps promote use of technology for making teaching-learning more effective. To run such a non-profitable organization, money is collected from a free market strategy of advertisement. Various products of industries, which are a part of CII, provide donations for Shiksha India Trust. In return, they use the motive of Shiksha India as an advertising strategy.
The common advertisement they propagate is

“Support Shiksha, lead a child to the path of education, Buy large packs of Tide, Ariel, Pantene, H&S, Rejoice, Vicks VapoRub, Whisper, Gillette Mach 3 Turbo, or Pampers, & lead a child to the path of education.”

The advertisement simply suggests that the more you consume, the more poor kids get proper education.

Consider another example, a person’s child is badly sick, he is trying to get her to a doctor. The urgent clinic is open until late night; the neighboring drug store is also open. The desperate father goes out; get the proper medicine and gets in, to save his daughter. There is nothing phony demand in this entire act of saving a child’s life.
However, the urgent clinic can remain open late because its office is situated in a dense mall with low rents and higher access. The medicine store is open late night because cosmetic store, bakery, bear bar, sports shop, a swimming pool, a hotel facilitating late night parties and discotheque also share the area where the medicine store is situated. All of these stores are selling superfluous things. They pay rent too. The owner of the mall would not have made that place if those less desperate needs were not to be sold there. That is, the want of leisure and pleasure of other people became the reason for the prompt and urgent health-care of that child. Some of the Indian cities are experiencing development, socialists call it redundant, Indian villages does not have such superfluous stores, they do not have proper schools and hospitals too.

The demand of public for the non-essential wants became the background of hospital facilities for the needful.
The same is the case of luxury goods such as mobile phone. Mobiles were meant to be available for the rich alone. It was not an essential demand it was a luxury good. Only the rich could use them. The innovators created cheaper versions; the capitalists increased the production and made it affordable even by the middle class and lower middle class person, now even the poorest of Indians is likely to have his mobile phone.

Quality of life improved even for the poorest person. He is more resourceful now and able to earn more.
Some people believe that quality of life does not matter, for them; equality of life is better idea. The question for such people is, why not the poorest should get easy access to vast grocery stores, medical stores, better food, technology, and other not-so-essential luxuries? Consumerism helps the facilities, better services, and technological comfort to reach to the poorest strata of society. Consumerism actually reduces poverty. In addition, the better quality of life provided by consumerism has its own importance. It is natural right of the people to have freedom to choose and buy market products, as they want. Free market provides this freedom to the consumer, the people. Free market keeps providing better technology and products at cheaper rates, and this ability of free market is driven by the motive of consumerism.

Better quality of life has improved the average life of people too. The average life of women and men in 1900 were 48 and 46 years respectively. Now, the average life of women and men consumers is 80 and 77 years respectively. Obviously, consumerism is serving consumers. Infancy death rates dropped hugely because consumerism brought better medical help and vaccines. Death toll due to epidemics reduced to great extent. Overall consumerism is serving humanity to lead human for better, more comfortable and more satisfactory quality of life.

Conclusion:
Either those who oppose and criticize consumerism are misled or they have some evil motives against the developing humanity.

Movies are the Mirror of Society

Unpretentious Diva — Sun, 04 Apr 2010 23:48:46 +0000

3 Idiots

It would be an interesting research if made over the pattern, overtime, that Bollywood movies have illustrated individuality and portrayed the relation of individual and society. Obviously, just like any other form of art, the movies also depicts the appropriate nature and situation of the society of that era but some art forms not only depicts the current situation of society, but also succeeds in providing a new trend a new idea for the society to be leaded and made practical, and such movies becomes the masterpiece. Objectively speaking, Art is a careful re-creation of reality according to an artist’s metaphysical value-judgements. Obviously, that selective re-creation is not meant to depict the things as they are, as Aristotle said that fiction is of greater philosophical importance than history, because “history represents things as they are, while fiction represents them as they might be and ought to be.”
Movies, being the indisputably strongest medium of art, if meant to show the things, situations, people and individuals as they ought to be, then they become the leading force of change in society and strengthens the values of individuality.

Current trend of Bollywood movies

With the liberalization of Indian economy, the civil liberalization is also gaining strengthen and bollywood flicks are portraying the essence and importance of liberty quite well. Ashutosh Gowariker and Amir Khan portrayed the inhuman nature of taxation in the movie Lagaan while Mani Ratnam portrayed Abhishek Bachchan as “Guru” struggling for economic freedom against socialistic governmental odds. The contemporary artistic subjects were merged with the colours of popular cinema and very odd individualistic tales like Tare Zameen Par and Black gained huge success. Such flicks obviously provide a sense of liberty in the individual to seek for his own freedom, his strengths, and his right for living with honour of independence. One can say that bollywood is providing artistic masterpieces depicting the importance of individual liberty and issue of individualism and in the same league, the two big movies of 2009, “Rocket Singh the salesman of the year” and the hugely successful “3 Idiots” confirmed that now Indian society is ready to appraise the libertarian attitude and the Indian youth is daring enough to raise the issues of collectivistic problems and is ready to denounce them, to fight against them. Even “Rang De Basanti” portrayed the current depleted morality of society and the struggle of youth against the social political tyrants, yet it was full of anger, violence, frustration and exhaustion. One may not group “Rang De Basanti” with the other Bollywood films of libertarian approach.

Ranbir Kapoor

Rocket Singh, while struggling to maintain his honest behaviour and ethical strength, manages to portray the basic factual difference between the corrupt corporatism and honest capitalism. So meaningfully and with such an ease, the movie establishes the golden rule of free market, “consumer rules and honest producer wins”. The movie also clarifies that to win over the evil, one does not need to pick up the violent means, nor one need to be evil by himself, Rocket Singh and his band of rebels tells us that ultimately honesty and hard work is a sound business decision. The movie suggests that irrespective of corporative and governmental corruption, if market is allowed to be a free space for the mutually beneficial dealings and agreements between people, producers, service providers and the consumers, than the most honest, prompt, hardworking and innovative one will gain maximum success, that is, a free market ultimately provides the required moral environment where honesty pays and dishonesty causes suffering and losses. While the boss of Rocket Singh robs him of his own company based on free market principle, consumers forces the villainous boss to learn the better way and accept the path of honesty and hard-work and ultimately, he goes back to Rocket Singh to accept the defeat of evil, wrong and immoral.
3 Idiots is yet again a masterpiece of Amir Khan. The movie is said to be based on the novel Five Point Someone yet, after watching one may thought of a laughing, rollicking Howard Roark represented as Rancho and a babbling, confused Peter Keating represented by Chatur Ramlingam (Silencer) . It is an exquisite story of a man from nowhere, who wanted to learn and create, who wanted to produce and who loved himself and his work. It is a lovely story depicting the win of a morally strong character who wanted to live for himself according to his own standards, who needed nobody’s sanctions and who inspired others too to live by their own standards. Rancho as Phunsukh Wangdu seems no less than a Roark who won over all odds to be what he wanted to be and to do what he wanted to do in exactly the same free rational and honest way he needed to be.
For some, these movies may seem like fairytales or impractical, yet they show the heights of individual freedom and its importance that Indian youth needs and the success of the current trend of movies confirms that Indian society is passing through a huge change in the mindset where the individual will seek for liberty and will fight for it intelligently and peacefully, to gain the freedom of his soul to establish his existence at his own standards, confirming that I, the Individual needs no sanctions, that “I need no warrant for being, and no word of sanction upon my being. I am the warrant and the sanction.”
On the same libertarian trend, Shahrukh Khan and Kajol’s latest flick My Name is Khan also portrays a simple libertarian fact that collectivism is evil and collectivizing individuals is greater evil, as SRK said in one of his interviews for promoting the movie—

We are only trying to say that there are only good people and bad people. There are no good Hindus, bad Hindus, good Christians, bad Christians. Either you are a good person or a bad person. Religion is not the criterion, humanity is.” SRK

Collectivism is not the criterion, individualism is, Individual is.
Another movie “Wake up Sid” depicts the quest of person searching for his existence, rationales, aims, setting his goals and winning over them.
Movies are the mirror of society and more than that, movies are a strong way of propagating the right rational idea. With the current libertarian approach of Indian movies and arts where the art forms with their fictional attributes are depicting the things as they might be and ought to be, one may say that Indian society is progressively improving and is set to accept and evolve as a free society looking for further establishing Individual freedom, his quest for his existence, happiness and letting him win his way against all odds of collectivism.

Right to Education is a Paper exercise

Unpretentious Diva — Fri, 02 Apr 2010 23:28:15 +0000

Indian government declared Education as a fundamental right for all Indians on 1st of April 2010. Was it a fool’s exercise on the April Fools day? It seems so.
By staging education as a fundamental right, government obviously insured a very well crafted vote bank issue based on altruism that will keep the ruling political parties in good colours. Political parties will not only gain votes over the issue, rather the government will also gain a further seemingly appropriate cause to rob the wealth-producers by means of taxes to implement all the required infrastructural development programs for the fulfilling of the dream of “Education for All”. Certainly, that will provide a vast canvas for further scams and swindles in the infrastructural development sector. Thus, for the political parties with their political motives, education as a fundamental right looks pretty good. There will be many new government schools that will provide governmental jobs for many Indians in education sector. The problem is will the new schools overcome the failure of the already existing governmental schools?

What about the drop-out rates?

There is a governmental school within the range of 2-5 KM near almost every village or slum of India, that is, lack of governmental schools is clearly not a big issue.
The problem is not about the children who never attend school. Such students are separate and very fast diminishing category. About 50% of children who join up in Class I drop out by Class VIII and that can be suggested as the major problem.
Despite all the mid-day meals and similar programs, governmental schools fail to keep the children intact with their governmental education. Now no matter whether government declares it a fundamental right or necessity, if the parents and their children simply do not prefer the idea of investing their time in such governmental schools, than this idea of education as a fundamental right will remain only a paper exercise that will never be a reality, although the governmental robbers will keep robbing the middle class of India and will burden them with more and more taxes to facilitate the education for all those who does not want that education and are certainly not interested in it.
According to the National University for Educational Planning and Administration (NUEPA) total enrolment in primary classes (Class I to V) was 134.4 million in 2008-09. In Classes VI to VIII, the total enrolment had dramatically dropped to 53.4 million. Now, if government considers that education is literacy, than it is acceptable that primary classes will provide the required education as a fundamental right, but what if more than half of the total students decide not to study any further the primary classes? Will government force them to continue their “governmental schooling” until all do not clear out the VIII class?
The problem is not that parents do not have money to educate their children properly; the problem is the poor quality of governmental education. Governmental education actually provides nothing to an upcoming citizen rather it burdens them with heavy books and senseless exercises that will never help him by any means throughout his life. Even if every Indian becomes a well educated graduate, not everyone can become an IAS officer, some may prefer to be a barber, or a shopkeeper, or a gardener, farmer, or may be taxi-driver. As some prefer to be a doctors and engineers, some other may prefer to be peons and beetle shop owners, or snacks vendors or simply “chai-wala”. Now no school provides any fundamental knowledge about how to be a better “chai-wala” or a better “paan-wala” or a better barber, or a better street-sweeper. There are so many jobs that people may prefer to do rather than going and wasting their time in the schools to clear out the VIIIth class exam. Can Government Issue a law that no person can be allowed to work and earn if he is not VIII class pass? That is, one cannot work as a laundryman, or a barber, or home-helper, or a “bawarchi” or chai-wala or any similar minion works if he is not VIIIth pass.
The Right to Education Act covers children in the 6 to 14 years age group, precisely for the classes from VI to VIII. So may be the idea behind the right to “governmental education” is meant to abolish child labour.
However, that will be a fraud against the children who prefer to go for all those minion works that are never touched by school education. Why should a child work so hard and waste all his time in learning the maths, science and languages of VI to VIIIth classes when he knows that it will never help him to be a good barber or taxi driver? For him, better education would be to attend a barbers shop and learn how to cut hairs with ease and provide consumer satisfaction for the consumers. If a child is looking for maintaining a shop owned by his father, he will certainly learn educate himself much more in his father’s shop under the tutelage of his father rather than in a governmental school. For such children, if government forces them to attend schools up to VIII or Xth class, than it will actually be forced child labour for those children and they will not earn even a penny for that unwanted labour.

Market is the Best Educator

A doctor practicing medicines in market since last 5 years is obviously much more apt than a freshly graduated medical student is. The market actually teaches the medical student how to treat the consumers, how to fight the diseases and save the patients. School and college education provides the base, and market furnishes the education.
In case of a barber though, no college, no school provides any base for becoming a successful barber. One needs to go to a barbers shop and practice there. For a forthcoming doctor, if he attends school and than college, education helps in strengthening his base, but for a forthcoming barber, only the market, that barbers shop can provide the necessary education and practice. Forcing him to go to school to get “governmental education” will be similar to burdening him with child labour and disallowing him the “necessary education”.
Conclusion: right to education may prove to be a good vote gainer for the ruling parties in upcoming elections, it will certainly increase the vast canvas of governmental corruption and swindles and will burden the Indians with extra taxes, yet it will remain only a paper exercise meant to fool the public and that is why education was announced as “fundamental right” right on fools day. It is inappropriate and unnecessary to expect every child of age group 6 to 14 years to go to school because for many such children, governmental school education itself proves to be child labour, while the market provides them the proper necessary education they require and search for. Thus, if government does not make it compulsory for every citizen to be at least VIIIth pass if he wants to work and earn an honest living, it is impossible to expect the RTE to work any better than a paper exercise. But if government makes it compulsory, than education will not remain a right, it will become a torturous duty imposed by dictatorial despotic altruistic politicians, because than, the certificate of VIII class pass will become the necessary license even to work and earn an honest living freely. Most of the times, these politicians displays slavery in the colours of freedom and compels the citizens to buy their enslavement at the expense of freedom.

UID, Will it work?

Unpretentious Diva — Sat, 13 Mar 2010 08:10:05 +0000

Smart card

With its current status of world’s largest producer of engineers and IT technicians, Indian government is now striving for implementing the technology in its administrative set-up and for doing that, the ruling class of India (The Politicians) have planned a grand program of provision of ‘Identity’ to all citizens of India through yet another identity card, although the new proposed identity card will be a ‘little smart’. The rulers feel that by tuning the system with the help of technological assets, they will win over the heart of young voters, further they suggests that the new database of identity cards will provide an efficient way to curb corruption involved in its various welfare programs, yet another propaganda the politicians are spreading is the use of Unique Identity Card for the prevention of crimes and terrorism. So here, we will discuss the worth of the program UID that grabbed Mr. Nilekani from his INFOSYS success and converted him to be cabinet minister rather than an entrepreneur.

UID card to tame Corruption

Unique Identity Card is yet another attempt of the government to assert that socialism, and welfarism actually works, and if it is not working than it is because of the corrupt nature of individuals rather than the corrupt nature of system, government is thus hell bent to prevent any corruption involved in its various welfare programs like National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme, Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, National Rural Health Mission, Bharat Nirman etc.
The government says that it will set up a UID Authority of India that will provide a unique identity for the targeted population of those welfare schemes and hence, the corruption inherited in such schemes may be reduced. That is, government yet again declines the fact that such welfare schemes are basically impotent and impractical while asserting that if government weave yet another security thread against the individual freedom, the corruption may reduce and things may work better. There is a basic problem in such a viewpoint. At present, government issues many of such identity cards that are being used to insure the proper beneficiary of the welfare schemes run by government. Yet, it is very easy to produce “fake credentials” and identity cards such as “Ration card”, voter ID card etc. So, by providing a UID smart card, that will contain a magnetic flash memory chip to secure the true information about the card holder that may not be duplicated without government officers concern, government thinks that corruption will be reduced, that is, its not the government officers, clerks and “babus” who are corrupt, but the public is corrupt, public provide bribes to the government officials to enjoy the benefits of schemes meant for helping the poor, while the poor as they cannot bribe, suffers. That may be true, yet how will the smart UID change the scenario? We already have a smart card for Driving Licenses since many years, which are no less sophisticated and technically sound than a UID, yet it fails to tame any corruption.

Biometric Identification

To record the biometric information of an individual such as his fingerprints, the shape of his hand bones, pattern of his retina, or voiceprint etc on to the idea can only confirm that the person holding the card is actually the owner of the card or not. That is, the UID is too much “fake-proof” it cannot be easily faked or duplicated. Yet, one can change the identity. The information such UID will hold can be as good as the source of information. Therefore, if the public and individuals are corrupt and if the corruption of Indian public is the soul reason behind the failure of governmental welfare schemes, than UID simply cannot help in removing any corruption and such schemes can never benefit the targeted group of individuals for which they are meant. The government officials entering the data in such “smart card” UID’s can be deceived by wrong information, fake birth certificates, salary or income certificates or they may be simply bribed for to issue fake ID’s that cannot be faked any further.
That is, although government is trying to push the cause of removing corruption with the help of UID, yet the UID’s are simply impotent and incapable to remove or reduce any corruption. UID cannot reduce bribery. Yet government is ready to force Indians to bear the extreme spending of $19 billions for the provision of such identity cards that are simply meant to be a failure in the cause of their issuance. This huge amount of money could have been used to “help the poor” yet the government has decided to invest this money to weave yet another government authority (UIDAI) that will control the identities of individual. Therefore, instead of bribing the local government and municipality officials, now the “corrupt public” of India will bribe the specific central government authority officers working for UIDAI. It will not reduce any corruption overall. Instead of taking the responsibility of the inherited corruption in its own base, government thus is blaming individuals and hence is trying to stage a new pattern of controlling and authorizing. How can we trust the government that after the failure of all its management, this huge spending will make it possible for government to reduce any corruption?

UID card for security reasons

Naxalism and Terrorism

India is constantly suffering the evil of violent terrorism from within its borders in form of Maoists, Marxists and Naxals, and from outside in form of Islamic militants.
Government thus suggest that the new “fake-proof” UID’s will help in strengthening the security system. The UID’s, which will contain the fingerprints, image of retina and a picture of the card holder are meant to be fake proof, yet are they really fake proof? The fingerprints can be faked by using a transparent rubber or plastic polymer on the fingers; retina can be faked out by using the contact lenses. That is, no matter how technically sound the system of UID will be, the same or other forms of technology will help the evil corrupt terrorists to deceive the UID security and hence, UID or any such smart card can never be fake proof. Imagine a terrorist simply uses the contact lens specially built for duplicating the retina of a genuine card holder along with using the plastic polymer on his fingers that is specially built to duplicate the fingerprints of same card holder; the picture can be simply duplicated on the card. The terrorist will use that card for entering a crowded building with his plans of violence. The “fake UID” will help him against any security check. The so-called wrong and overhyped security zone of UID will lax the security officials and that will further help the terrorist. The fancy technology of UID would give us a false logic of security and incur a dangerous overconfidence in the security officers who should be most cautious.
A UID will not prevent terrorists from entering the country, it will not stop the terrorist from purchasing materials for making of bombs, and it will not restrict them for making a weapon of mass destruction. The UID will not stop a terrorist from entering a public building like a Hotel or restaurant or bank and opening up their vests full of bombs. A UID cannot prevent such terrorism. On the other hand, terrorists will get help in targeting their “venue of terrorist activities” they will simply look for the places requiring a UID card check as there will be huge crowd and will commit a mass attacks through other channels.
In addition, the officials of the new proposed authority UIDAI will be the same people who are now in charge. Consider the level of their competency that will not increase because of a further new UID. The government had prior warning and information about the terrorists before 26/11 Hotel Taj attack. Government had prior inklings before the attack in Jaipur too. Government knew that the long coastal border of India is being used to infiltrate miscreants, yet because of its incompetency, it failed to secure Indians. Even after the attack of 26/11, Indian government failed to mend its ways and India suffered yet another brutal terrorist attack in Pune on German bakery, Maoists killed security officers at the police camp in West Bengal.

Misusage of UID

The governmental and political terrorists can also misuse the UID. The miscreants of MNS or Shivsena Hooligans may use the UID to confirm their victims and harass them. It would be very easy for government police to ‘identify’ innocent Muslims to attack and harass them after any incident like that of Godhra case, and to plan an attack like that of “Best Bakery” in much sophisticated way. After the assassination of Mrs. Indira Gandhi, Sikhs were brutalized throughout the India, because of which, many Sikhs tried to save themselves by cutting down their hairs “Juda to Munda Sardar conversion”. That helped many Sikhs to save their lives, but with UID, it would be impossible for any Sikh in such a case to save himself. In a way, UID will be a breach of the freedom of an innocent citizen and he would be an easy target for the government or politically imposed terrorism.
Conclusion: The UID can not increase the competency of government in either the case of security of citizens or the welfare of poor lot. The incompetent government and government officers may waste any amount of money on any such UID card, but I doubt it would help even a bit, yet the economic cost of the UID program is excessively high, that money could have been used for some real welfare purpose. Secondly, the UID will again threaten the individual liberty and government will further start controlling the innocent citizens while it is simply incompetent to catch and control Naxals, Maoists and Islamic terrorists.
“Just as we must not allow terrorists to threaten our lives, we must not allow government to threaten our liberties.” Ron Paul

The Drama of Women’s Reservation Bill

Unpretentious Diva — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 07:04:25 +0000

They are 'able' and they don't need reservation to proove that

After all the ruckus of Parliament, the women’s reservation bill was passed on 9th of March. The brouhahas of the dramatic parliamentary debate over the women’s reservation and the consequential voting over it was no less dramatic than the fake emotional ‘atyachar’ so commonly used and seen in various reality TV channels shows. All seemed to be pre-planned and directed and well-executed, and the result was huge TRP coverage for the ongoing Parliamentary debate over the women’s reservation bill and every news coverage related to it. News channels declared the passing of the bill as a historical milestone in the Indian political arena. Every person was forced to get involved with the issue of reservation for the women and literary was forced to accept that reservation actually is a noble idea that may provide equality and will improve the society by any means. Those who opposed the bill were wilfully shown as villains and those who supported it were shown as the heroes for the women cause, and the main leader was obviously the bigwig of Congress Mrs. Sonia Gandhi.
The process of entitlements, reservations, and special privileges was shown as the process of liberty and hence the freedom of individual was virtually brutalized by means of the whip of reservation. More than 100 blue commandos were called to bundle out the villainous MP’s who were trying to offset and oppose the voting for the support of WRB (women’s reservation bill) in Rajyasabha, and in planned way, the opponents applied the most illogical and irrational way of opposition, their opposition was no less than ‘violent’. Nobody actually opposed the idea of reservation nor they supported the idea of empowerment of women, what all of the MP’s of Indian parliament were doing was an act to influence a particular voting sect or the other, and the winner came out to be the ruling party which facilitate the women’s reservation bill. Now Congress party may dream of getting most of the fairer votes in the upcoming elections, after all, they bribed the women of India by providing them special privileges over their male counterparts.
Is the Women’s Reservation Bill of any Worth?

She doesn't need reservation to be able to work and earn. She knows she can

Women’s reservation bill assures 33% seats of MP’s in the parliament to be reserved for the women, i.e., at least 33% of MP’s would be women from now on. Will that change the scenario of politics, will that make Indian parliament look better or say ‘more beautiful’? The reservation for women may soon be enforced in public sector services of India too and then it may be enforced in the private sector too while enforcing a law on private sector to make it compulsory that every genuine company or enterprise must provide at least 33% of their jobs to females.
Will that improve the society? As a matter of fact, such entitlements, special privileges and reservations divide and weaken the society, but this time, the attack is not on the society alone, it is directly an attack on the families of India. The reservation is not going to increase the employment but with the compulsion of at least 33% of jobs to be provided for women, the government will virtually force 33% of women of India to be the soul bread earners of their families. What will their husband do? Well they may choose to be house-husbands, or may choose to try for entrepreneurship. Will that provide equality of men and women in the society?
More importantly, is the equality a virtue.

“Women who seek to be equal with men lack ambition.”

Women who seek to be equal with men lack ambition!

Consequences: All this political drama of reservation and special privileges for women will weaken Indian society and Indian women. It will increase further egoistic clashes between the two genders and will decrease the familial harmony. The reservation for anyone itself is a curse to society but reservation for women will start cursing the families. There will be more divorces, more cases of unsatisfied, sad and deranged couples applying for divorces. It is not a good trend although it may increase the voting account of the political parties. When Indians must oppose reservation based on Caste, religion and birth, the politicians of India has forced Indians to think about reservation based on gender too.
The major humanitarian idea of no differentiation based on caste, creed, sex, religion, colour, ethnicity has been abused and the trend of specific privileges and entitlements for the gain of political vote banks has been enhanced. It is the process of weakening of Indian Individuals and the Indian society as whole, but the major victims will prove to be women alone. A woman full of ambition does not need any reservation to prove that she is able. By providing her reservation, it has been virtually proved that she is not able and she lacks ambitions.

Although feminism speaks the language of liberation, self-fulfillment, options, and the removal of barriers, these phrases invariably mean their opposites and disguise an agenda at variance with the ideals of a free society.
Michael Levin

The Free Society Principle for Reducing Poverty

Unpretentious Diva — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 14:12:24 +0000

A free society by definition is the society in which, each individual, i.e. the basic unit of the structure of society remains free to pursue his personal prosperity and happiness, where he is free to achieve his most using his talent and hard-work and saved resources. Obviously, such a society depends on rational pursuit of self-interest and provides full freedom for the individuals from the shackles of social responsibility or altruistic motives.
Often socialists claim that such a free laissez-faire capitalist society will turn out to be a system of dog race where no one will look for the poor, the impoverished an the depraved. Furthermore, socialists claim that for a poverty-free society, compulsory altruism is most necessary, where the producers and creators who can produce wealth, must be forced to pay for the living of the poor and depraved. All governments throughout the world follow such Robin Hood’s philosophy and rob the producers, creators, entrepreneurs and investors for the name-sake of welfare state by means of compulsory taxation, price control, Universal Equality Programs and other similar dictatorial techniques. Yet, the world suffer the problem of poverty as always and despite all the huge socialistic efforts by the governments whole round the world, situations never improves.

So what can help to eradicate the poverty?

As per World Bank’s estimates, 60% of Indian population was living in poverty in 1981, during the socialistic regime of Indian government.
Since 1991, India enjoyed the streams of economic liberalization and stepped towards the making of a free society. As a result, the current estimates of World Bank suggests that 42% of the total Indian population now live under the global poverty line of $1.25 per day (PPP). That is quite a big sweep.
Similarly, in China, since the far changing economic reforms and liberalization were made in the late 1970s, the growth fuelled a noteworthy decline in the poverty rate from 64% at the beginning of reform to 10% in 2004.
Obviously, the data suggests that economic reforms and liberalization is the key to the eradication of poverty. Before 1991, the government controlled almost all industries and production sectors of India but after that, step by step liberalization of industries from public sector to private sector took place and the OECD states the result in following words

Annual growth in GDP per capita has accelerated from just 1¼ per cent in the three decades after Independence to 7½ per cent currently, a rate of growth that will double average income in a decade. […] In service sectors where government regulation has been eased significantly or is less burdensome – such as communications, insurance, asset management and information technology – output has grown rapidly, with exports of information technology enabled services particularly strong. In those infrastructure sectors which have been opened to competition, such as telecoms and civil aviation, the private sector has proven to be extremely effective and growth has been phenomenal. – OECD

Similarly, China confronted economic reforms and liberalization in 1978 and now, as of 2005, 70% of China’s GDP is in the private sector. The relatively small public sector is dominated by about 200 large state enterprises concentrating mostly in utilities, heavy industries, and energy resources.

Free Market Entrepreneurship is the Key to riddle of Poverty

happy eating rice

The examples of China and India clearly show that a free market based on Individual freedom is obviously a solution for the poverty in the society itself.
What impels an entrepreneur, investor, producer or creator in a private sector to remove poverty is not his “altruism”, rather it is his selfishness, his motive to produce and earn more, bigger profits. Yet for making profits, he needs to increase the productivity of the workers. As productivity of workers increases, the poverty reduces.
Social governmental constraints, regionalism, nationalism, license raj, price controls, taxes and subsidies etc only reduces the productivity of individuals and hence causes further poverty.
Examples of Entrepreneur trends eradicating poverty
While the politicians and government of Maharashtra is playing cards of protectionism, regionalism and linguistic discrimination by framing such ridiculous rule like permitting a taxi license only for those who can speak and write Marathi, the youth from North East is enjoying various job ventures in private sector freely in Indian metros. For their productive efficiencies, girls and boys from North East are in great demand for jobs in private sector as service providers, sales persons, mall, showrooms or boutique managers etc.
This contrasting difference between the private entrepreneurs and government authorities is because of the fact that private entrepreneurs are motivated by the single aim of satisfying their customers in best possible and productive way for doing which, they need to come above any such linguistic, regional or religious discriminations. On the other hand, government and politicians have nothing to do with customer’s satisfaction or individual rights; what they look for is potential vote bank.
The Astaire Research suggests the hurdles in Indian economic reforms and progress in following words —

A Balance of Payments crisis in 1991 pushed the country to near bankruptcy. In return for an IMF bailout, gold was transferred to London as collateral, the Rupee devalued and economic reforms were forced upon India. That low point was the catalyst required to transform the economy through badly needed reforms to unshackle the economy. Controls started to be dismantled, tariffs, duties and taxes progressively lowered, state monopolies broken, the economy was opened to trade and investment, private sector enterprise and competition were encouraged and globalisation was slowly embraced. The reforms process continues today and is accepted by all political parties, but the speed is often held hostage by coalition politics and vested interests. – India Report, Astaire Research

Another example of entrepreneurs helping the cause of eradicating poverty is the success of entrepreneurs like Vikram Akula or Irfan Alam.
Irfan Alam an MBA from prestigious IIM-Alhmedabad is the founder and chairman of the SAMMAAN Foundation. His enterprise innovated for the help of the millions of Rickshaw pullers across the country. Most of them are illiterate and poor. Over 90% of them are farm workers who migrate to cities for want of employment at home. They hire rickshaws for which they pay owners Rs 30 to Rs 40 per day and end up with a pittance for themselves.

Highway to Prosperity Highway to Free Market

He managed and persuaded banks to finance rickshaw-pullers. His enterprise SAMMAAN designed rickshaws that can put on hold newspapers, mineral water bottles and other such small items for sale if the passenger needs them. These rickshaws also carry advertisements and the pullers get 50% of the ad revenue, the remainder going to SAMMAAN.
Thus apart from the fare, the rickshaw-puller also earns from the ads and the sales. Gradually they become the owners of the rickshaw after re-paying the bank loan in instalments.
Irfan started off with 100 such rickshaws in 2007. Today, over three lakh rickshaw-pullers from across the country are registered with SAMMAAN. While 10,000 and odd are pedalling the special rickshaws, the process is underway to benefit others.
Conclusion: It is the selfish motive of the entrepreneurs to make profits that entails the solution of poverty. As the governments will start to leave the market and society free of their dictatorial regime, the society itself will reduce the poverty to minimum.

Quota in Crimes

Unpretentious Diva — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 23:03:21 +0000

The Article 7 of the Human Rights declaration suggests that

“All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination. ”

The law is supposed to be enforced uniformly, and without any discrimination against the guilty based on their economic and social background.
Yet recently, the Indian Apex Court decided to go against the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
On Monday, the Supreme Court said that the courts should consider the economic status of a murderer before sentencing him to death penalty of life sentence even in cases of crimes falling in the category of “rare of rarest”.

Quota in Crime

The Bench comprising of Justice P.Sathshivam and H.L Dattu said that poor background of the accused should — along with old age and years spent behind bars while awaiting death sentence — be considered as mitigating factors when courts ponder whether life sentence should be used in an otherwise fit case for death penalty.
It would be fascinating to know why Supreme Court judges are seeking for the populist issues, is the Supreme legal body of India the Apex Court trying to be the champion of socialism?

Significance of the Supreme Court Statement

Reservation for the Poor in Crime
The Supreme Court believes that socio-economic factors might not dilute guilt, but they may amount to mitigating circumstances. That is, if a girl walking on road is raped and murdered by a rich tycoon, than he is surely guilty and must be punished in the harshest manner, but if the rapist murderer belongs to middle class, than the punishment should not be that harsh, furthermore, if the rapist belongs to lower-middle class, than the punishment must be further “mitigated” and if the rapist is a poor (there is no definite definition of poor), than the punishment can only be for the name-sake. After all, he is poor, he should have reservation to be morally depraved, and he should be having freedom to rape or murder, steal, or rob.

Should the poor have the right to rape, murder or rob the others?

The idea behind this is a morally strong, talented, intelligent person is obviously a criminal to some degrees, on the other hand, a lazy, stupid person, who obviously is poor, is certainly innocent to some degrees. Alternatively, the idea can be, to be rich, hardworking and intelligent is a crime in itself.
Obviously, it is akin to show a green flag for all who consider them poor, to be casual about the moral standards and feel free to commit crimes. It is just like showing the shortcut for the poor to be criminals and make money through mean ways.
Apparently, this trend will increase further crime in cities as now; the poor will get a certain “mitigating” security while committing a crime. The police and law bodies are supposed to deal with “poor criminals” with ease.

Consequences of Such Ridiculous Ruling

As now poor have reservation in committing the crime, they can easily innovate and employ themselves in various crimes. Not only they will feel free to commit robbery, theft, rapes or murders for their benefits, they may be employed by the other “richer” criminals to pursue their benefits. Furthermore, any criminal, if he is rich, can easily deal with some poor and pay him a chunk of money to take the responsibility of the crime. The poor will also feel no harm in taking the responsibility of the crime as that will provide him high money and the Supreme Court has already provided him an assurance that his punishment will be much “mitigated”.

Result of Quota in Crime would be an abrupt increase in crime!

Results will be an obvious increase in crimes, further increase in jail maintenance and police expenses, terrorizing environment for middle class individuals and exploitative situations for the poor individuals. The mafia of government, police, politicians and oligarchic corporatists will enjoy the foolery of Indian public that will appreciate the socialistic thought of Supreme Court and Indian government to give priorities for the poor in committing crime, Nonetheless, the Apex Court ruling have provided an easy money making job for the poor. The poor now doesn’t need to be hardworking, morally strong, intelligent and talented for making his life better, he just need to be morally depraved and ready to commit a crime, or to take the responsibility of any already committed crime.

Trailing the Law further

Indian politicians always remain hungry for any such populism so that they may divide the society in various fragments; cause them to struggle within and than rule over them. Yet this time, the Apex Court of India has taken the route of populism. No politician could have thought such a new sector to be divided in various sects of society. SC has already announced the reservation for the poor eventually the High Court of various states may announce a similar quota for Muslims in crime too and then being a Muslim will also be a mitigating factor for punishment for a crime. Well, terrorism is also a crime, so if a terrorist is poor, SC suggests that he should not be punished severely, if High Court of West Bengal announces similar mitigating quota for Muslims, then if a terrorist is a Muslim, he will also not be punished severely.
Quota for crime based on economical state has been announced, sooner or later politicians will again install some committee’s recommendation, suggesting that Muslims should also get reservation in crime, after all Muslims are predominantly minority, no less than poor. After that, politicians may further divide the criminals among their various castes as SC criminals, ST criminals or OBC criminals, with various “mitigating” degrees that would certainly be prescribed by the Supreme Court bench of judges. Ultimately, government and law authority have started encouraging the crime and producing the criminals.
Conclusion:: Socialism, or the idea altruism, that is, the obligatory immorality of having “pity” on the poor ultimately leads to the destruction of not only the poor but also of the whole social set-up. Whenever the government or central collective law authority takes such altruistic step, irrespective of their good intentions, the results come out to be devastatingly opposite. The recent statement of Supreme Court to discriminate the criminals based on economical class will certainly increase the crime in society and will further cause deterioration. The best way a society can assert uniform justice is by providing free or privatized legal services.

Gun Control Is People Control

Deadman On Campus — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 11:23:23 +0000

The Ministry of Home affairs, Government of India, is on the way to amend the Arms and ammunitions policy. The document issued by MHA says “Proliferation of arms and ammunition in the country disrupt the social order and development.” How true is it? As in many other issues, the conventional wisdom could be wrong. India has very strict gun control laws. In India, people were prevented from bearing arms by the British under Lord Lytton as Viceroy through the Arms act of 1878 after the mutiny of 1857. Though the Arms act, 1858 was repealed in 1959, Arms Act, 1959 was put in place, supplemented by the Arms Rules, 1962. As a result, there was improvement in several development indicators, after Independence, but crime rates in India have gone up several times, mostly in urban areas.

With all these gun control laws, we were not able to prevent the terrorist attacks in 2008, Mumbai. A reporter in the location was caught saying he wished he had a gun instead of a camera. Only people loyal to the British were allowed to possess arms. Many freedom fighters were opposed to this rule. Even Mahatma Gandhi opined in his Autobiography:”Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of its arms as the blackest. “I do believe that when there is only a choice between cowardice and violence. I would rather have India resort to arms in order to defend her honor than that she should in a cowardly manner become or remain a helpless victim to her own dishonor.”

Proponents of gun control usually argue that gun rights will lead to high crime rates. Firstly, a criminal is a person who violates the law. Is it logical to assume that such a violator will obey gun control laws? A criminal planning to attempt a murder won’t think “Oh, I am sorry. I don’t have a gun. So, I am not going to do this!” In one way or the other, he will get hold of a gun or some other powerful weapon. Vikram Kona writes: “There are around 40 million illegal small arms in circulation in India. Most of them are either illegally smuggled in or manufactured in the illegal cottage industries. Criminals never apply for licenses, nor do they spend a fortune to buy illegal guns. They get them cheaply and easily on the black market, and use them against law abiding citizens with impunity.” Gun control would only disarm innocent, law abiding citizens. Secondly, there is no empirical evidence to prove that gun rights lead to severe crimes. Quite the contrary, in fact! Nations with the highest crime rates are the ones with the strictest gun control laws. The low crime rate of Switzerland is illuminating. Violent crime skyrocketed after gun measures were prohibited in Australia in the last 90’s. When Washington D.C. enacted a ban on handguns, homicide rate rose 200%, while the U.S. rate rose 12%. Often, it is argued that Gun controls are the reason for the low crime rate in UK. There are two points to be noted here. Crime rates were extremely low in UK, even before the hand gun ban. Crime rate rocketed after the ban. As it is said, “Your chances of being mugged in London are now six times greater than in New York.” A study by the US Department of Justice found that there were 40 percent more muggings in England, and burglary rates were almost 100 percent higher than in the United States.

It follows from the philosophy of self-ownership and the right to own property that people have the right to defend their lives and property- If necessary, by force. If so, people should have the right to bear arms. It goes without saying that people should be held accountable for their actions too. But, it makes no sense to punish a person before the criminal act is performed. It is absurd to prevent some people from being armed simply because there are people who use guns for wrong purposes. Why should ones rights be determined by the actions of others? Should a person be prevented from driving an automobile as others drive recklessly? (People killed by their own guns are an extremely rare minority) Charles Reese perceptively noted: “To believe that guns cause crime is as stupid as believing that hammers and saws cause houses. Cars and doctors kill a lot more people than firearms, but nobody wants to ban them.” There is even an NRA slogan: “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.”

Not for a single moment am I saying that gun rights will prevent crimes. But, people will have a more chance of protecting themselves if they are free to defend themselves. Murderers, thieves and terrorists would think twice before attacking their victims if there is a chance that they are armed. Women and physically weak people could be made strong only through gun rights. It’s ridiculous to expect policemen to be omnipresent. Defending oneself is a skill which anyone can acquire.

It should also be said that a ban of guns won’t eliminate guns from the society. There will always be people who get hold of guns, just like people have access to drugs despite of strict penalty. Such laws can only be enforced selectively. Almost always, people who are not in good terms with the authorities will be punished. The real intention of the people in power is to increase their power through disarming people. Gun control is the greatest threat to individual liberty.

The failure to establish the Indian national identity

Fisherman — Fri, 25 Dec 2009 22:58:19 +0000

Indian state is as much a natural conception as it is a political planned fertilization of the diverse linguistically different regions of an area whose only common identity before the unification by the British was the same racial and religious identity. India as a unified state never existed in history, and it never had a common binding factor that unites all its populace regardless of race, cast religion or linguistic identity. The British unification of India not only united the geographical region, but, for the first time in history, it provided them a reason to unite, against the common enemy, the foreign invaders. However, as soon as it was clear that the fight was won, the leaders now had to provide a separate reason for which the state must continue its unified existence, and bar the Muslim League, nobody could propose a clear and distinct definition of what India was going to be like. The Muslim league wanted a state based on religion that could unite the mass after the departure of British, their movement got a great support, and they were able to form their state, an Islamic republic, through the partition of India. Nevertheless, the non-viability of that identity in the sub-continent was proven by the partition of Pakistan, in a linguistic basis, though the inhabitants of both the countries were Muslims predominantly, and had taken part in the earlier partition enthusiastically.
India was born with a nation identity which was conceived in negation to these historical occurrences, India was a sovereign country, which wanted to protect itself from being occupied by foreign force, India was a secular country, unlike Pakistan, and this “unlike Pakistan” part was very important to Indian people, who failing to understand the proper meaning of secularism interpreted it as religious tolerance. India was not going to be divided by the linguistic biases, so, states were created out of linguistically distinct areas. Hence most of Indian identities established at the point of independence were rather reflection to past and present occurrences, rather than being a conception of conceived and new ideas. As time has progressed, the state of world around has changed, but the principal denominator of Indian National Identity has not changed, and deemed extremists demanding independence on mostly ethnic, religious or linguistic grounds have emerged. Thus, the first conceived identity has failed somewhat, as it was precisely against these very ideas.
To add to this has been the indecisiveness over the government form, India, conceived by Gandhi Ji was a state whose power rose from the Panchayeti Raj, that conceived by Jinnah gave states almost full autonomy, and that conceived by Nehru-Gandhi rulers was centrally dominant. As such, states have felt exploited sometimes or the other during history, as most of the states of India have linguistically and culturally distinct people, who do not necessarily identify with the great Indian cause unless their cause has been properly addressed. Furthermore, the government has given some states more power and autonomy than others (e.g. Kashmir) though declaring it to be a special circumstance, the people of other state have not stopped short of creating special circumstances for their own states. The India government has been blackmailed so many times at gun point, that every other ethnic group now has one or two extremist factions.
The failed idea to promote one national identity through one national language during the 60s have been forgotten by the Saffron Brigade who are promoting it in a new pack of triple Indianism (Hindi, Hindu, Hindutwa) with poster boys like Dr. A P J Abdul Kalam, and incidents like the demolition of Babri Masjid. It has quite often published in the media that Dr. Kalam starts his days by reading a verse or two from the Geeta, which according to the saffron brigade, is what an ideal secular Indian would do. Dr. Kalam has been exploited till he could yield no more, he has been used to prove that Muslims can be patriotic, that being a Muslim does not necessarily mean having a soft corner for Pakistan. The saffron brigade in last 20 years has created amidst the majority that they have been wronged time and again throughout history, and then by their very own government. Now, the majority resents having to share a state with Muslims, who were given a separate state — Pakistan.
To add to this feeling have been the introduction of various reservations. India, a country where being of higher caste meant you were worshipped as God once is now seeing various groups demanding that they must be bracketed with the Scheduled classes and tribes. And these demands are often turning violent, and in some extreme cases, given rise to terrorist organization. The introduction of reservation, which it was thought that would get rid of discrimination have divided the Indian populace like none other, and it has involved the educated elite too, who previously did not care about castism. Rather than getting rid of caste differences and making people forget it as a shameful part of history, the government has taken it out and put it before everyone and made it something which everyone must be aware of.
The political parties of India show how far India really is from achieving a true national identity. Most parties are conceived in racial, linguistic or religious circumstances, and barring the communists, no party has a clear economic stand point, forget about individualism. Even the communist, who come from a strong economic and philosophical ideology has been found confused and reacting in a knee-jerk manner. Their acceptance by the educated once showed that India once was prepared to move beyond the politics of cast and religion, but now, communists are mostly seen waving their secular flag rather than using their true red flag of equality and social justice. Hence, they have been rejected by the educated people, and now are in dangerous of being wiped out of a state which they have ruled for 27 years, and that too to a lady whose political agenda is solely based on objecting to the communists and nothing more. Such a shame.

I, a libertine, was very much interested in the communist politics in my young adulthood, as that appeared to be the only party which was addressing the real issues and moving away from cast and religion. Many of our friends came to join the party, but soon became disillusioned not because the party was proposing communism, which we did not like, rather because, it was going in the same direction as the others. But all those people from the previous generation, who wanted to vote on economic basis, had no option but to vote for them, and it is sad, for their demise proves that the field for true libertine philosophies is almost non-existent and is violently opposed by the present parties.
Now, the Indian Nation identity is very much limited to that of being born in this country to a mother and father who are Indians. And hence, the rate of emergence of separatist movement is increasing every year, and the government has to bribe to keep the nation integrated. Perhaps, someday, the identity shall be established on economic and philosophical terms, and citizenship by birth be abolished in favour of citizenship by choice. But then, what would limit the boundaries of such a state? A global mega state brought about without the use of arms, perhaps!

Euthanasia-The right to end one’s Life

Unpretentious Diva — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 00:54:32 +0000

Shanbaug , a 61 year old woman , who suffered a brutal rape 36 years ago and has been lying in a vegetative state since last 36 years wants to culminate her pain and misery, her life. Her “Next Friend ” describes her as

Her bones are brittle. Her skin is like ‘papier mache’ stretched over a skeleton. Her wrists are twisted inwards; her fingers are bent and fisted towards her palms, resulting in growing nails tearing into the flesh very often. Her teeth are decayed and giving her pain. Food is mashed and given to her in semi-solid form. She is in a persistent vegetative state.

She has a right to live, should she be punished for that right? How human is it to force her to suffer all the pain regularly? Does the “right to live” include the “right to die”?

The right to Live

Freedom is so little understood in this “land of the free” that it is often confused with its opposite.

In 1948, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly declared in article three:
“Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.”
One must understand that “right to life” just like any other right, is not an inalienable, rather it is a subjected of the liability of the right holder.
It is not only an axiom underpinning the concept of freedom, but rather the necessary means to fulfill man’s ethical requirement to achieve a life in accordance with his nature. That ethical requirement derives first of all from the fact that we are living entities facing, like all living entities, the fundamental alternative of existence or non-existence, life or death. By our nature, our specific capacity to deal with that alternative is reason volitionally applied to action. If one chooses to pursue the alternative of death, questions of first principles are moot. If one chooses life, then life becomes one’s goal and the standard of all values.
The complex and spontaneous nature of our lives requires us to identify those values we must seek in the service of our life and order them into a code of values to guide our choices - i.e. an ethics. The primary precondition is the freedom to exercise autonomy over the application of reason and action in the service of our life. Thus, the right to life and our need for freedom is based on what we are - on the fundamental nature of man.
The moral right to one’s life is not a social/political right. It is that which in principle is right for any individual in the context of his own life. When and if an individual chooses to live among other men and interact with them over the long run, he needs to preserve his ability to live by his moral rights. Nothing can prevent him from doing that except physical force or the threat of force, so, above all, his primary social need is the absence of coercion so he may apply reason and action to production and voluntary trade. Yet, what if a person does not want to be with others, he does not want to live anymore? Is he the soul owner of his life, is he the only decision maker for his own life? Yes, he is free, he is no one’s slave. That is why, human dignity and his self-ownership, his sovereignty is considered even above the right to his life.
A man surely possesses an inherent right to a dignified life and by virtue of this right; he certainly is the sole decision maker of what to do with his life. Society, as a cumulative function of many free individuals is a positive human structure to help the man to attain and enjoy the right to his dignified life, the society cannot dictate the terms of dignity or life to any person and it is his decision to be made, free of any social, political or legal coercion.
Thus, in a case of an individuals like Shanbaug, if she prefers to end her miserable and painful life, it is her decision to be made. She is the sole owner of her life and she inherently owns the right to end her life too.

Current norms of Right to Life

India is considered as a free nation, a land of free individuals.
Freedom is so little understood in this “land of the free” that it is often confused with its opposite. The current example of Shanbaug is evidence to that prevailing confusion. The Apex court of India that negated the pleas of termination of pregnancy of mentally retarded girl resulting from a rape at Nari Niketan in Chandigarh and a similar plea from a Mumbai couple for terminating a diseased fetus , raised questions against the plea of Shanbaug to terminate her own life. The objection was obsolete and rhetoric. ‘‘Do you mean right to life includes right to die?’’
In no way a man’s right to dignified life can be alienated from his proper right to die. If the society or legal codes of society rule over the individual moral code of life, than it means that the individual is not free and certainly have no sovereignty, rather the individual is mere a subject of legal socio-political norms of collective society.
The Apex Court of India now has accepted the plea of Shanbaug to be debated at Supreme Court. The question is why should the Apex Court be considered as more powerful than the individual’s own right to self-sovereignty and Freedom?
Most probably, Apex-court may dictate a directive to discuss the provision of certain amendment in IPC to include the provision of Physician Assisted Suicide; they may subject it to a public constitutional debate. The Supreme Court may totally reject the plea to voluntary suicide too. Yet, if Apex Court accepts Shanbaug’s plea, as doctors have told her there is no chance of any improvement in her state, will it be any positive step towards Individual Freedom? Will the Supreme Court of Free India ever realize that Indians are not a subject of rule of Supreme Court or national government rather they are entitled to individual sovereignty and a dignified life?

In no way a man’s right to dignified life can be alienated from his proper right to die.

To keep a will of a person to end his life under the decision of Supreme Court or under the will of physicians to decide whether to let a man die or not is a direct breach of “right to live with Dignity” confirmed by the Article 21 of Indian Constitution. By force-feeding Shanbaug and treating her, as a vegetative entity for the purpose of medical tests and experiments is not only unjust, it is highly inhuman. She is not a mouse or cat dependent on the will of physicians.
In case, if Apex Court agrees to let Shanbaug end her life “if Doctors permits her to perform Euthanasia”, than again it would be a breach of individual freedom of Shanbaug and her right to her life. She is certainly not a slave to those doctors whom Supreme Court may consider as the decision maker of who should live or who should be allowed to die.
Physician Assisted Suicide (PAS) is a mendacious issue; it confirms that the physician is principle and not the assistant, that it is the physician who will make the decision whether the person should be allowed to die. An assistant generally means the sub-ordinate that helps one in achieving his decision, but in case of PAS, the physician himself becomes the decision maker, the person superior to the patient. PAS simply empowers Doctors and not the individual to make a free decision for their own life. As a matter of fact, PAS is breach of right to life.

Economical Aspects of Euthanasia

Since last 36 years, government hospital is “force-feeding” Shanbaug, keeping her alive with permanent care, which technology has made an option in an overwhelming number of hospitalized cases. It is not the only case and it requires resources that someone must relinquish in order to make it possible. That is, Government is forcing a person to keep living miserably with no dignity against her will like a slave, while the same government is exceptionally unable to provide any proper medical treatment or help to millions of other Indians who often suffers health hazards and deaths because of lack of medical facilities. How proper it is to waste resources and money on simply forcing and enslaving a person who by her own will want to die, at the expense of misery and poverty of millions of other person who may need the welfare health resources desperately?
No matter how much Indian government spent on people like Shanbaug, they will remain vegetative and unwilling to live, they will keep suffering and feeling like encaged, enslaved, undignified things for governmental medical experiments, no better than rats and dogs. Obviously, we the tax-payers are being robbed for such inhuman acts.
In absence of government control over health care, the decision of life or death of Shanbaug would have been in her own hands. Had government not been paying for her hospital care, perhaps interested individuals would have been willing to contribute to her care. As long as private individuals were voluntarily giving of their funds to keep her alive, it would have been much more difficult for a court to order her feeding tube disconnected. However, because the state is paying for it, ultimately, life and death decisions is to come from a high arbitrary government power. Neither Shanbaug nor her close relatives have any say in that, they may keep pleading like miserable beggars for mercy and humanity to the Supreme Court.

Conclusion:

Right to a dignified life is a fundamental moral right that confirms the right to die itself. If right to life is left not as Individual freedom but as a subject of governmental legal whims of lawyers, magistrates and physicians, than it simply means that Individual is not free even to decide for his life, it would certainly be a breach of his right to life. Moreover, by means of coercive tax-collection and universal health-care, Government again breaches the individual’s fundamental right to dignified life at one hand; on the other hand, it is huge wastage of very limited and scarce medical resources.

Can Government Eradicate Poverty?

Unpretentious Diva — Sun, 13 Dec 2009 03:41:59 +0000

Every political leader, a representative of “the people” realizes that nobody in “the people” like to face poverty. Yet, poverty is wide spread. Every government aims its political and ruling program at reducing scarcity and helping the poor. Often the statist argues that government is necessary because if there will not be a government, who will care for the poor, the depraved ones. Politicians often use this “altruistic” propaganda to lure the voters.
The only practical solution to the problem of poverty in masses is to increase the productivity of individuals. In absence of government interventions, for the rational profit motive, free market provides an explainable way to make most efficient way for the usage of resources and to minimize the wastage, thus free market naturally is the solution to poverty. Yet, by means of interventions, government induces irrationality in the market and hence, reduces the productivity while increasing the wastage of resources. Obviously, with reduced productivity and enhanced wastage of resources, the government itself becomes the cause of mass poverty and scarcity.
At the failure of all their agenda to reduce poverty, they further come up with same propaganda of “helping the poor”. Well, the end results of government interventions just come out to be opposite. Does government really want to help poor?

Inflation

In order to hide the evil result of government interventions, it becomes necessary for the government to play with its own issued “Fiat Currency” to manipulate the illusionary GDP figures. As a result, poor people become further poor while government keep emphasizing on the increased GDP rates. When a common man asks, how is that possible that with increase in GDP, poverty is also increasing? He gets the answer that although GDP is increasing at a fixed positive rate (Indian GDP is supposed to be 7%); the prices are increasing at much higher rate. Government than stress that although Gross Domestic Product is appreciable, but inflation is the cause of concern. When government decides the prices and inflationary rate, why is it increasing? Terms like Gross Domestic Product or National Domestic Product has no meaningful relation with productivity of market. When government introduces new currency either by printing currency, purchasing bonds, manipulating interest rates, or by announcing bailouts and help packages, those who use the money at first (obviously, the rich), may get benefits, but the same money becomes the reason of Inflation (Price Rise) and Poverty. No government takes responsibility of Poverty though.

Minimum Wages

Minimum wage law is commonly known as the saviour of poor and unskilled minority workers. What are its real effects? Minimum wage law forces employer to pay workers no less than Rs80/- per day. At a higher wage, more workers seek employment, but the employer suffers loss of income and hence desires fewer workers to employ. It is simple, if price of sugar will increase, one will use lesser sugar, if price of labour will increase, one will wish to employ lesser workers. In addition, when one can employ a better and skilled worker at say Rs100, why will he employ an unskilled workers at Rs 80/-? That is, the chances of employment for the poor become further less and he is forced to absurd poverty. On the other hand, because of general decrease in will to employ people, even the skilled labour suffers unemployment. Without employment, unskilled worker never gets a chance to work and improve his skills. Thus, he remains without work with any chance to gain any skills. He may choose to beg or be a robber. Obviously, unemployment increases crime rate too, further causing problems to poor.
Thusly, Minimum wage law is compulsory unemployment, reduction in production and it is an incentive to crimes in society.
Furthermore, employers, knowing demand for employment is more, can afford to discriminate between workers. They may employ only the workers of their own caste or religion, as they will have to give Rs80/- to whosoever they employ. Thus, minimum wage law creates caste and religious tensions, hence further crime in society.

Government Health Care

only the people of the poorest section that suffers lack of medical services

Government health care system is another such propaganda that is meant to help the poor. First of all, government controls the medical fraternity and education board of India and does not allow free market to produce medical practitioners in enough quantity to serve the ever increasing number of patients. Than, government makes the medical education so clumsy, time consuming, tough and costly that seldom youth want to be a medical practitioner. Again, government forces those “so less in number” produced medical practitioners (doctors, nurses, medical assistants) to work “involuntarily” in villages at least salaries for first few years, and hence makes the medical sector unattractive. With so less number of medical practitioners, the cost of health care reaches enormous heights. In addition, doctors employed at government hospitals suffer the pressure of extreme work-load and to reduce that, they start discriminating and ignoring the patients. Obviously, the poor suffers. Government try to help poor by subsidizing some common medicines. Thus, the profit of medicine production reduces and hence investment also reduces resulting in scarcity of not only doctors and equipments, but scarcity of most common drugs and medicines too.
Government hospitals cannot be maintained properly because of lack of incentive of profits and the natural competition to provide cheapest, best and trustworthy services to the patients. Hence, although poor may go to government hospitals, they seldom get any proper services and treatment. On the other hand, the richer government officials often enjoys the benefits of government hospitals while the common middle class men prefers to go to private clinics.
Overall, only the people of the poorest section that suffers lack of medical services because of Government intervention.

Higher Education

As explained above, Government has a unique fetish to control the Higher education sector. Universities and higher colleges get massive government funding via tax-payers. Seldom has a poor kid gone to higher education. On the other hand, among the rich, it is customary to graduate, no matter they many of them never learns anything and even if they learn, they never uses it ever. While the poor, because of government intervention in education sector, suffers even a scarcity of good and cheap primary education.

Denial to earn an honest living

Government surely causes poverty through its interventions in market, yet government let the poor to earn a proper living, Government is not stopping any poor person to work hard and make fortunes, is it? Yes, government strictly denies the poor to earn honest living by enforcing various barring laws like permits, licenses, regulations, bureaucratic hurdles, zoning laws etc. A rich person can simply bribe the government official and start making money through his business, a poor man even cannot get enough land to open his tea stall nearby a main road. He will have to bribe the police constable, the municipality officials and many more. Thus, by stamping out potential competition from small business, government serves the big business of rich people. On the other hand, the poor again suffers unemployment, as they can not pertain to self-employment. Thus, they find only two possible ways for them, either to be a beggar, or to be some sort of criminal.

Way to Oligarchy

Government control over market is the reason of all types of corruption. In a free market, if a person want to accomplish a project, he need to pay the exact price that the project will cost, not more, nor less. Under government, the person can simply bribe the politicians and bureaucrats to favour him by employing certain policies to reduce the cost of his project. Thus, government control over market always turns out to be oligarchic in nature where some politicians and rich businessmen makes a cartel to maintain the monopoly and control the poor public.

Conclusion:

As one can see, not only the aforementioned government interventions but any form of government intervention in market destroys the natural order and ability of the free market to reduce poverty and create peace and prosperity. By means of cost control , government actually increases the prices of necessary commodities while production and supply reduces vastly, hence further causing poverty.
Whenever in whatever way government intervenes with market, it creates chaos resulting in wastage of scarce resources, unemployment, and reduced productivity. As a matter of fact, although politicians propagandize their political motives as to help and serve the public and poor society, the government actually is the worst enemy of poor and whatever way it intervenes with Market, it does so just to hurt and inflict poor further.
Hence, in order to really help the poor and let India progress, government needs to leave the Market Free. As free market will reduce the employment rate to zero, (human labour is scarce resource) productivity will increase and poverty will reduce.
No person able to produce and earn a good honest living will choose to be a criminal or beggar.
That will surely reduce the extremes of poverty and hence will reduce the crime rate too.

Noble Laureate Obama and Afghanistan

Unpretentious Diva — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 11:57:54 +0000

War has a Role in Peace

Noble Laureate Obama, A Pacifist

While accepting “Noble Peace Prize” at Oslo, Obama did not forget to mention his recent decision to escalate conflict in Afghanistan soil. He further argued that his decision to increase 30,000 some more US troops in Afghanistan is justified to protect the world from terrorism and extremism and to maintain peace.
In short, Obama declared that wars are essential for the establishment of peace. He also paid his tribute to his “Heroes” Mahatma Gandhi and civil rights leader Martin Luther King.
Some will say that Obama wrongly mentioned Mahatma Gandhi as his ideal; Mahatma Gandhi obviously is known as apostle of peace and pacifism. How could a Gandhian support wars? Could Gandhi be a supporter of wars? Are not wars the ultimate and most excruciating form of violence?
It is a well known fact that wars ultimately causes violence, wastage and poverty. Yet, if some nation is all set to attack you and threat other nation, than the nation under the threat of attack would presumably try to defend itself. Self-defence is a natural right, no one can argue against it. Self-defence cannot be termed as violence. Yet, what about pre-emptive wars?
Is it right to attack a nation just because it may or may not attack you in future?
Does self-defence includes pre-emptive wars to be staged in order to dishevel and destroy the other nations. Is it necessary to destroy and defeat all in order to establish peace? Are wars necessary to sustain peace?

Mahatma Gandhi on Wars

As Obama reverberates himself as being a disciple of Gandhi, we should look at Gandhi’s attitude about Wars. Gandhi ji was obviously against staging any war, he was a supporter of Non-violence, yet there was not a war that he did not support. He supported all the wars in his life time. The apostle of peace Gandhi himself supported British in the Boer War, Zulu War, WW1, WW2.
In 1914, Gandhi himself joined British army as volunteer for the Ambulance corp. to serve the injured Indian and British soldiers at Zulu war. One may understand his compassion for the suffering of soldiers; he was not taking part in active violence.
Yet, in April 1918, Mahatma Gandhi urged Indian youth to take part in British army as war recruits. Perhaps to show his support for the Empire and help his case for India’s independence, he deemed it necessary to take part in the war. He might have considered it as pacifist way of non-violence, that is rather than fighting against the British rulers, let the Indian youth fight for the British Empire and in turn demand or beg independence as reward. It should be mentioned that while he openly demanded Indian youths to help British army in World War1, he felt aghast when some Indian youth tried to protest against British brutality on Indians “violently” and because of that, he took his Non-cooperation movement back in 1922. Obviously, Gandhi was strictly against any form of violence against British Empire by Indians, yet he was ready to recruit Indian youths to kill enemies of British empire, including the Zulu protesters. For Gandhi, the most necessary peace was, peace of Indians against British Empire.
For Gandhi, the pacifist form of war in order to establish and sustain peace was non-violent, hence although he urged Indian youths to fight and die in battle grounds for British Empire, he also maintained that Indian youths must not fight against British rulers in India, because that would be direct violence, and that was not acceptable to Gandhi. Why was Gandhi ready to recruit Indian youths to “co-operate” with British Army in Imperial wars, while he himself was launching the Non-cooperation movement?
During the WW2 again, Pacifist Mahatma Gandhi again favored offering Indian moral support to British army in 1939 when Nazi Germany invaded Poland. Obviously, it seemed right decision as Nazi Germany obviously was violent. Yet, when other leaders of India objected Indian youth’s inclusion in British war, Gandhi declared that India could not be party to a war ostensibly being fought for democratic freedom, while that freedom was denied to India itself. As the war progressed, Gandhi drafted a resolution demanding for British to Quit India. Obviously, his pacifist support for British army during the wars became the saddle of deal for Indian independence. Gandhi realized that British Empire would be exhausted after the two consecutive world wars and hence he declared that even if some Indians directly fight violently against British Empire, he would not take his Quit India demand this time as he did after the World War1.
He knew it was the ripe time to force exhausted British Empire to Quit India.
Thus, it can be seen that if Obama mentions that he took his inspirations from Mahatma Gandhi, he does not sound hypocrite or wrong.

Changing standards of Noble peace prize community

Mahatma Gandhi was nominated for Noble Peace prize many a times, but he was rejected every time. The last time Gandhi was nominated, the Noble prize committee rejected Gandhi because of his known support for Indo-Pak war.
Based on a telegram from Reuters, The Times, on September 27, 1947, under the headline “Mr. Gandhi on ‘war’ with Pakistan” reported:

“Mr. Gandhi told his prayer meeting to-night that, though he had always opposed all warfare, if there was no other way of securing justice from Pakistan and if Pakistan persistently refused to see its proved error and continued to minimise it, the Indian Union Government would have to go to war against it. No one wanted war, but he could never advise anyone to put up with injustice. If all Hindus were annihilated for a just cause, he would not mind. If there was war, the Hindus in Pakistan could not be fifth columnists. If their loyalty lay not with Pakistan, they should leave it. Similarly Muslims whose loyalty was with Pakistan should not stay in the Indian Union.”

That became the reason for Gandhi’s rejection for Noble price of peace.
Yet now, when every body is familiar with Obama’s support for Afghanistan war, when Obama himself argues and justifies his decision to escalate combat against Afghanistan on the platform while receiving the Noble price, nobody really think that he should not get a Noble because his support to wars.
Maybe now, the Noble Committee agrees that War is necessary for maintaining peace and that preventive war are a part of establishment of peace. Obviously, this is a change in the attitude. Gandhi was rejected the Noble for his support to war against Pakistan in order to keep peace, while Obama has been given Noble despite of his support to war at Afghanistan to keep peace.

How Gandhian Idea would help Afghanistan Situation?

Pacifism of Gandhi suggest that the native Afghans should openly help US troops in order to fight against Taliban and Osama Bin Laden and after the end of Taliban and Osama Bin Laden, the Afghans should peaceful demand evacuation of US troops from Afghanistan. That is the appropriate way and it will ensure the non-violence of Afghans supporting US army against Taliban. Gandhi might have urged Afghan youth to recruit themselves along with US troops to fight against Taliban. A Gandhian may request Indian government too, to help US army to fight against Taliban as a “pre-emptive non-violent measure to maintain peace.”

Libertarian Idea on Pre-emptive Wars

Unlike Pacifists, a libertarian does not believe in preventive wars. A libertarian cannot support an attack on a nation or a person on the name of defensive necessity. The right to self-defense does not mean to attack first in order to remove any chances of being under attack. Libertarian sense of Self-Defense necessarily means No use of Violence at first but full right to defend yourself within your limits if you are being attacked. An Indian libertarian might not have thought of fighting for British Empire and than to argue for his own independence. Rather he would have preferred to fight against the British Empire, as they were the invaders, attackers because self-defense is not a right, it is basically a duty of a freedom lover, a Libertarian, or a Libertarian might have simply adopted non-cooperation in all accounts, including no-operation for British Empire in their wars too.
Unlike a pacifist Gandhian, a libertarian will oppose Obama’s decision to increase troops in Afghanistan and will demand a sudden end to all war fronts, just like Ron Paul did during his famous Libertarian speech “What If” in assembly —

Babri Masjid –The Saga of a Historical Monument

Unpretentious Diva — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 08:23:06 +0000

Long ago at the shores of Indian Ocean, there used to be a country. It was an officially democratic nation whose ruler caste (whom we now a days know as Politicians) were very happy and prosperous. As the nation was officially Democratic, no one was actually puzzled against the extreme prosperity of the politicians, the rulers of that nation. The general population was also presumably satisfied at their standards.
Many people were happy because they could get the rationed LPG fuel cylinder while standing in the queue, while some others were happy because they could get the Gas cylinder easily at a little higher price through black marketing. Most of the people were happy because they could earn two-time bread for their living and could arrange a little bit of clothing. It was a god blessed nation and as it was a secular democratic state, every religion held specific importance; the populace was religiously superstitious and god-fearing. Nobody used to believe that they are the soul earner of their living, rather they considered it as God’s blessing, and hence there were seldom any agitation for individual rights. Religion became the very power of politicians to proclaim there right to rule over the populace.
Gradually, the ruler started feeling that the “religion” is loosing its effect in the nation and that became the cause of worry for the politicians. As all “religions” were equally important tools for the politicians to rule, they realized that if the religions loose their glory, people might start feeling agitated, demanding and querying. Thus it seemed necessary for the politicians to plan and act to ascertain the importance of religion, they sincerely wanted to establish the ruling power of that nation as the protector of all religions. The think-tank of politicians was engrossed to plan the possible ways to reassert the sanctity of religion.
At last, the think-tank of ministers conjectured the importance of a very old building situated at a historical town (Ajodhya) of the country. The building was hugely dilapidated and nobody used to care to visit it. It was in a sense, unimportant for the present populace with no significance. It was believed that once upon a time, that building was a great temple, a religious place. Once, an infiltrator came and attacked that religious temple, destroying it, he ensued to make a new religious building, a Minaret and named it after his own name (Babri Masjid).
The general population was indifferent about that historically disputed religious place. There were already plentiful religious temples, minarets, gurudwaras and churches. Yet, a section of the ruler caste (the politicians) determined to make a new temple at the place of that dilapidated worthless minaret. They thought, it would bring huge applause and happiness in the masses and that will again establish a religiously sanctimonious rule over the nation. The other section of the ruler caste (politicians) used the opportunity to overplay the tool of other religion, debated about saving the already dilapidated Minaret, and proposed of renewing it. The debate grew gross and took the form of agitation accompanied with violence. Consequentially, the common men of the nation found themselves divided over the issue of religions and that became a further triumph of the politicians. At last, the old ramshackle building was attacked and destroyed. Nobody could say if the common men felt any happiness or satisfaction at the destruction, yet all sections of ruler cast (the politicians) were exuberant about the instruction, it provided them a further cause to establish their power to rule.
Thus, the ramshackle of a building that was generally of no importance for the common people of the nation suddenly became the most important issue for the public. Everyone was forced to think about it. The issue of making a temple became the hottest debate. Some people were sad for the destruction of a meagre minaret, some were happy for the hope of making of already redundant temple. The division of public grew angry and caused huge bloodshed. Women were raped, children were butchered, villages were burnt, and people were murdered. The religions were reclaiming their glory at the expense of blood of common men.
The prime ruler of the nation established a Commission to examine the destruction of the minaret. The building was no longer of no importance; it suddenly became the potent farm of political ventures and profitable vote banks.
Gradually, the issue of the destruction of minaret started fading. People again found themselves busy for living their own life peacefully, trying to improve their living standards and finding ways of prosperity. They again started seeking for their happiness. The issue of temple and minaret again became obsolete. Yet, the rulers felt that it is not good and they should try to venture at the use of the tool of religion to reclaim their right to rule. Thus, they remembered about the Commission and the report of the Commission over the destruction of that minaret that was Commissioned decades ago.
The report was announced publicly in the biggest house of public representatives (Sansad Bhawan) openly. At the report , the different sectors of the ruling caste (the politicians) again started debating to show how much they care for the general public and how happy the common men would be about there representatives fighting for their religious sanctity. Yet, the public was further smart this time. Common men saved themselves from the trap of the ruling caste (the politicians) to divide and rule the public. The common men already had found ways to prosperity and happiness elsewhere. The public was religious even then and used to pray every morning, but they were smart enough to ignore any debate over the obsolete dilapidated building any further. Thus, the ramshackle of that building, which was forced to be the reason of violence and agitation within the populace, again became unconcerned, unnoticed and unable to divide the public and cause further violence and bloodshed.

Inhumanity of Minimum Wage Law

Unpretentious Diva — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 08:25:03 +0000

“Concentrated power is not rendered harmless by the good intentions of those who create it.” -Milton Friedman

One may wonder what the great economist Milton Friedman was thinking while he uttered those words. May be he was thinking of the ill-effects of price controls and how does price control causes shortage and hence excruciating conditions for the most poor men of society. He might be thinking of the ill-effects of socialized medicines, or may be he was thinking about the irrationality of minimum wage law and the manner that the very intention of improving the living conditions of poor workers actually condemns many to acute poverty and unemployment.
Minimum Wage Law in India

Abolish Minimum wage, Abolish Youth Wage

In 1920, Mr. K.G.R Chaudhary took the initiative by setting up boards in different industries to determine the minimum wages . It must be recognized that in those days, the British government held total control over all of the Indian industries and law bodies and Mr. Chaudhary was an agent of British Government. The idea clearly was not at all to improve the living conditions of Indian workers whom the British government considered as slave; rather it was to pacify any possible insurgencies. It was a British government’s vicious trap to divide and rule the Indian youth and workers for their own profits. At one hand, they were luring the industrial workers by the assumingly better living conditions they were promising to provide; on the other hand, they were simply crushing out any chance by native businessmen and entrepreneurs of British India to be a successful. That initiative also created a rift between those Indians who were engaged in the British government controlled industries as they were being lured for a better life and the other portion of youth that was not working for the benefits of British government. This political step obviously divided the Indian youth and workers and hence decreased strength for struggle of freedom.
After Independence, the new democratic government of India set-up a “Committee for Fair Wage” in 1948 to provide guidelines for wage structure through out the country, it was the beginning of Minimum wage law in India. Were Indian leaders, who are assumed to be the fathers of Independent India such fools that they failed to realize the vicious trap of British Government and hence established the poisonous minimum wage law, or were they simply following the steps of British government (being the new rulers of India) to keep the policy of Divide and Rule?
Consequences of Minimum Wage Law
The rate of unemployment is directly proportional to the overload of labour cost over productivity. Minimum wage law that forcefully raises the costs of unskilled and inexperienced labour and thereby increases the labour cost, while decreasing the productivity, certainly raises unemployment, also as no one can employ a worker at a wage below the minimum wage forced by the law, the unemployed youth fails to get any chance for employment (as it would be illegal) and hence suffers extreme poverty. Often economists ignore the fact that minimum wage law actually causes unemployment and poverty because of the shear fear of politicians and rulers, who just for making their vote bank keep exploiting the poor lot.
Consider a case of a private primary school engaged in providing elementary education to the poor kids of a society. The owner of the school is obviously not a rich person, he is managing the school to earn a living and in return, he is providing job for teachers he employs and a well-managed system of education to the kids of the society at affordable student’s fees. He cannot increase the student fees to that level at which parents would find it difficult to send their children to his school. Initially, he engages 10 teachers, 2 clerks and 4 menial workers at an average salary of Rs 1000-Rs 1500 per month. In September 2007, the national minimum floor wage was increased to Rs 80 per day (that is Rs 2400 per month) for all scheduled employments from Rs66 in 2004, to Rs 45 in 1999, Rs40 in 1998 and Rs 35 in 1996 .
That is, the school owner is actually doing an illegal act by giving lesser salary to the ten teachers he has employed than the salary, which government has admonished to be given to the teachers (workers). Obviously, the teachers would be happy if their salary were increased from Rs1000-Rs1500 to Rs2400 per month, it would almost be double. If government forces the school owner to give the dictated salary to all his employees, he will certainly find himself unable to give that amount to his employees and hence he will be forced to trim the number of teachers, clerks and helpers to half. That is, if government forces the minimal wage law on the school owner, he will simply remove 5 of his teachers, 1 of the clerk and 2 of the menial workers.
That would increase the salary of remaining 8 employees but will certainly throw the unfortunate other 8 people in poverty and unemployment. They will hardly find any other job because all other employers will also suffer the similar inhuman conditions of lack of money to employ the job-seekers.
In case of teachers, the school manager has option to choose the best of the teachers and remove the average or below average teachers. In case of the clerk and the menial workers, he simply does not have such a choice because almost each of his employees is similarly skilled and efficient in those works. So how would he decide whom to remove and whom to keep as his employee? He may choose to employ those, who agrees to sign at the pay slim as admonished by the government, while taking lesser salary in turn of his favour to keep them at job, that is, he would be tempted to promote corruption. Otherwise, he may keep the workers of his caste or religion while removing the workers of other caste or religion. That is, the minimal wage law will force the employer to cause hatred based on religion or caste.

Were the Indian politicians fool enough to be unaware of vicious nature of Minimum Wage, or were they following the footsteps of British dictators to Divide and Rule and exploit the poor Indian?

On the other hand, because of lesser teachers, the burden on each to teach the students appropriately will be increased, their working hours may increase. Government can certainly admonish another law to restrict the maximum working hours for employees. In that case, either the teachers will start ignoring the students, or the school owner will have to remove some of the students to balance the workload of teachers. The owner of the school will also suffer losses because he simply cannot increase student’s fees (government can admonish against that) because if he does so, the parents by themselves will feel to remove their children from school and hence stopping their education. At any further increase of minimum wage of the workers, the poor section will suffer further. Thus, the final sufferers of the inhumanity of minimum wage law are always the poor, the workers, the consumers and the producer.
Conclusion
Minimum wage law not only increases unemployment and extreme poverty but also, it increases tensions anger in between the various sects of the society based on religion and castes or race. It promotes racism, poverty and shortage.
It would be wrong even to think that the founders of India were fool enough to miss the true nature of minimum wage law, yet they kept following the British policy of divide and rule just to keep their political vote bank strong enough while the poor public is bound to suffer. Such inhuman policies are necessities of government to exist, hence government and politicians often lure the poor public by misguiding them and pretending that the politicians are with good intentions and want to help the poor, the reality is, government exists on the principle of violence, exploitation and robbery and enslavement of poor citizens.

Power cuts, Brownouts and Blackouts

Unpretentious Diva — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 16:30:27 +0000

The two major political propagandas of Indian political parties are “Education for All” and “Electricity for everyone at every Village”. Despite all the technical advancements government failed to provide electricity for every village of India, not only that, government failed to provide incessant electricity to any city too. India suffers acute electric shortage. Most of the cities suffer brownouts. Generally, any common city or town of India suffers electric cuts for 4-6 hours daily, while some more industrial cities and towns of India (like that of cities of Uttar Pradesh) suffers acute blackouts for even 12 hours a day.
It would be nothing new to stress again that it is impossible for any government to ensure and provide anything like “Free-education” or “Free-electricity” as citizen’s rights in any condition. As it is impossible, governments are bound to fail to meet such promises.
The Destruction of Power Sector under Government
We have seen how the price controls destroys the power of market and producers to supply the required commodity to meet the demands and hence creates shortages. In order to neutralize the effect of price control, government thus tends to exclusively control certain sectors of production completely under the monopoly. As government controls the production and supply of electricity thoroughly in India, it may be assumed that the price control on electricity may not affect the supply because it is the government only, that is producing and supplying electricity and hence government may provide electricity sufficiently at controlled lower prices or even at no price at all. As a matter of fact, government even tries to provide free-electricity for various purposes, yet government suffers acute shortage of electric power and hence fails to meet the demand of electricity. The natural law that price controls brings shortages works even in such exclusively government franchised production sector.
Role of inflation in electric shortages

Power Sector is crucified by the Government Monopoly to suffer deficits, losses and incapability to meet demands, consuers are forced to suffer Shortages

If there is no inflation and government is providing electricity at lowest minimal prices, government often fails to gain any profit over the power sector and hence suffers acute financial deficits to increase the production of electricity to meet the required demand. Even the minimal possible price for electricity certainly remains much higher than the prices that would have prevailed in free market because not only the electric sector suffers any vital competition to increase production and decrease prices; it actually prohibits any such effort. All efforts to increase production are surmounted by the increase in demand.
If there is a genuine inflation rate, the cost of production of electricity keeps increasing, while the government and regulatory bodies either refuses to increase the price of electric power or allows only insufficient increase in prices. As a result, power sector suffers losses and deficits and ceases to grow rapidly and increase production because it gets no profit to save and invest in further production. Hence, government is forced to provide subsidies and capital for the power sector to keep producing from the compulsory tax collected. As a result, the citizens are forced to pay much higher price for the comparably insufficient and menial electric services than what they would have been paying for much better and sufficient electric services in free market. As the power sector under government regulations remains in deficit and suffer losses, it fails to replace worn-out equipments and service lines at higher prices due to inflation and that increase wastage and forces power sector to actual decline.
Corruption in power sector
Because of the natural losses and deficits in power-sector, government is forced to pay the required amounts to keep the production of electricity from the budgets of compulsory tax collected. This enforces a certain corruption where the more hardworking and able persons who are obviously making higher incomes, are forced to pay much higher prices for the power-sector (or any commodity/service under government monopoly), while the lazy, dishonest and incapable ones are getting the same services of electricity at much lower prices, often at no price at all. This obviously is acute corruption that forces every citizen to actually accept corruption in his own demeanour. As any consumer realizes that he is actually paying much higher prices for the electricity in form of various taxes he is forced to pay than the others, who are paying lesser taxes, he feels cheated, and that increases the tendency of consumer to steal electricity. Often consumers tend to tamper the electric meters and other ways to actually use more electricity and pay less. This seems to be genuine too because they are already paying much higher prices in form of other compulsory taxations. Often, because of controlled prices of electricity people over-consumes and hence waste the electricity. Overall, the power sector is forced to keep suffering great losses, insufficient amount to keep increasing production, to replace worn-out equipments, supplying lines, and almost no amount for development, innovation and inventions to reduce wastage and increase production. The amount that could have been used to increase production of electricity is wasted upon creating better meters to prohibit stealing, which seems impossible because in a way, stealing becomes necessary to reduce the already forced corruption by the government on citizens.

Power sector under Monopoly suffers lack of profits to replace worn-out equipments, lines and lacks any investment in innovation to increase the production of Electric power

As government is forced to pay for the power sector through the budgets and compulsory tax collected, the amount that could have been used for progress in other sectors is wasted upon the already suffering power sector and that decreases the overall progress.
Will the Nuclear technology reduce the scarcity of power?
It is assumed that nuclear technology may increase the production of electricity and hence reduce the shortage, but it is not possible because the nuclear technology is a replacement for thermal and hydroelectric production. Thus, at one hand the production of electricity will be increased, at other hand, it will be decreased too while the basic reason for the shortage of electricity, that are government monopoly and regulation, price control and inflation, will remain unanswered.
The solution for the acute power shortage India is facing is to reduce the regulation and ultimately culminate the monopoly of government on power sector. If private bodies are allowed to invest in power sector freely with property rights, the production of electricity will increase manifolds; the wastage in supplying electricity will reduce to minimal. Because of competitive free market, the price for electricity will tend to decrease and that will promote the private electric service providers to increase the reach their facilities to more and more consumers at much lesser prices.
Furthermore, the producers and investors, in order to increase their profits will keep investing in innovating and inventing ways to increase progressive technology and production of electricity. As consumers will get their desired electric services at the genuine prices, the tendency to steal electricity will be reduced to minimal and that would further decrease the wastage to much extent.
Conclusion: The new 123 deal is hugely insufficient to solve the shortage of electricity in India. Indian government need to privatize the power sector and let the investors and entrepreneurs to invest in innovative ways and technology (including nuclear technology) to increase production of electricity and hence decrease the actual price of electricity for the consumers.

Reason of Price Rise and Consequences of Price Control

Unpretentious Diva — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 06:59:21 +0000

Inflation engrossing Individuals

The skyrocketing prices of common commodities is becoming the main political issue around which, the BJP is trying to make their case against Congress lead government. It is true that government is responsible to the price rise, but can government control the prices or the price rise?
It is a common myth that producers, hoarders, speculators and dealers control the prices and tries to bring the prices as high as possible to make maximum profits at the expense of poor consumers who have no choice but to be exploited by such corrupt speculators, hoarders and dealers. It is certainly an irrational myth because to make maximum profits in a competitive market, the speculators, hoarders and dealers need to adjust selling their commodities at the minimum possible prices.

Who Decides the Prices?

The price of a commodity depends on its demand and its supply. Demand and supply being the amount of commodity the buyers are prepared to buy and sellers are prepared to sell, at all prices.

If supply is constant, The higher the price of a commodity, the lesser is its demand, the lower the price of a commodity, the higher is its demand.

As the speculators and sellers reduce the price of their commodity, the demand of that commodity increases. People obviously are willing to buy more shirts at Rs20/- per shirt and they will buy lesser shirts at price of Rs40/- per shirt. Since the lower price increases consumers, speculators and sellers tend to decrease the price to the minimal possible value so that they can outcompete the other speculators and sellers. Most of the consumers will opt to buy from that seller who is asking the least prices and hence, that seller will make maximum profits. Obviously, a speculator cannot decide price for his stored commodity any less than the actual cost of that commodity plus cost of its storing and his share of profit.
Thus, it should be clear that speculators could not decide the price variation of a commodity as price is directly proportional to the demand of consumers. A speculator or a seller may merely speculate the increasing or decreasing trends of the demand of a commodity and adjust the supply of commodity by either storing it or flooding the stored quantity of the commodity in market in accordance with their share of profit.

Can Government decide and control the prices?

Speculators cannot decide and control prices because they cannot force anybody, they cannot use violence against anybody. So, if a speculator decides to sell stored commodity at higher prices, he will loose his consumers, as they will have choice to go for that speculator and seller that provides the commodity at lower prices.
Yet, government can decide and control the prices because government do not need to look for the supply of a commodity, on the other hand, government works under the pressure of vote banks. In order to obtain maximum of the vote bank, government can actually decide the prices of various commodities lower than the cost of production and storage of those commodities. That is why, just in order to gain maximum vote bank, government can promise to sell wheat or rice at a price of Rs2/- per kg, or even at free of price. This is absolute corruption and fraud because the cost of production of any commodity or service is always higher than the price dictated by the government and hence government always works at loss that ultimately burdens the poor consumers, voters. Government can control the prices too because it has monopoly on violence, government can force all speculators and sellers to sell the product at the dictated prices; it can illegalize speculating and selling and may control selling services completely by collectivizing the market. Government can jail speculators, sellers and dealers if they do anything against the monopoly of government, government can kill them too by means of police force.
Obviously, government has no responsibility or need to look for the quantity, quality and supply of the commodities of which it dictates the prices because the basic means of government income is confiscatory, compulsory taxation. Yet, when supply of a product reaches too much lower and the demand increases too much higher, government succumbs under the pressure of demand and supply and resorts to increase the prices, that again creates havoc for the consumers.

Reason of Price Rise and Consequences of Price Control

In order to hide its irresponsibility and fraud, government often suggests that the reason of price rise is population explosion and scarcity of products. Yet, it is again a myth. It is true that Indian population increased almost 4 times since 1947, yet the thing to be noted is, Indian production increased 100 times (or more). So comparably, production is too much more in relation with present population than what it was in 1947 in relation with the population of 1947.
Price rise is direct consequence of Inflation . As government has monopoly on printing fiat currency out of thin air, it keeps increasing the fiat currency. As a result, the purchasing power of citizens increases. Since the purchasing power of consumers’ increases, their demand also increases and it exceeds the quantity of available supply.
Whenever the quantity of demand of consumers’ increases than the quantity of supply the producers and sellers can provide, the situation of shortage occurs where the consumers are willing to buy, but the sellers and suppliers cannot provide, they have nothing to sell.
Such situations creates tensions within the society and may erupt in violence as every consumers suddenly comes to realize that although they have fiat currency, they have no wealth, they have been robbed and they are poorer than what they were years before. To avoid such situation, government feels forced to increase prices of commodities because price rise actually solves out the problem of shortage. At higher prices, demand of consumers decreases and tends to come closer to the quantity of supply available in market. Yet again, government may loose vote bank because of price rise, hence it resorts to price control again.
Price control is again a fraud and creates chaos in market. Due to lower dictated prices, demand of consumers remains high irrespective of the supply and that increases wastage of scarce products causing shortage. As production and supply never meets the demand of consumers in such scenario, the consumers suffers.

Solution of Price rise and Shortage

Gold Currency

As price rise is result of Inflation and government’s monopoly on printing currency , the solution of price rise obviously is a denial of fiat currency and acceptance of 100% gold standardized currency and end of government monopoly at issuing currency . The increase in supply of such money would always be ineffective and small and would be limited by the high costs of mining additional quantities of gold.
Price rise became a chronic social problem because government replaced the Gold standard of currency by unworthy paper currency whose quantity can be raised without limit and without cost. There is no other solution for this chronic problem.
In addition, the problem of shortage and all the frustrations, corruption and violence attached with it is because of the government control over prices. In order to avoid any shortage of any commodity in market, it is necessary for government to leave the market and pricing system free of any interventions and let the producers, sellers, speculators, hoarders and dealers take care of the pricing system.
Speculators and hoarders saves the consumers from shortages by speculating any change in the trend of demand and supply and adjusting the prices to that level at which, the demand of consumers decreases or increases to the equalizing levels of the available supply.
When demand is higher and supply is less, speculators increase the prices and hence decreases the demand to equalize it with the supply and hence saves the consumers from the frustrations of not being able to buy, and thus avoids any wastage and shortage.

Cure of Shortage and Famine

Unpretentious Diva — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 07:01:25 +0000

We have seen how the state planning for alleviating famine and food shortage fails miserably in a planned economy. Often in a mixed economy, government seeks proper control over the agriculture and food sector and that becomes the reason of corruption and further suffering at the times of need, scarcity and famine.
On the other hand, in a free market, the profit motive acts efficiently to assuage worst kind of shortage and famines and hence actually save the populace from extreme starvation.
In a free market, there is a tendency of price of wheat, rice or crude oil (or any other commodity that can be stored), to be equal to its expected prices say after 6 months or a year, that is, free market naturally depresses the unexpected price rise.
Whenever government intervenes with the market, the market moves away from this natural tendency and the consumers suffer unexpected shortage and famine.
The force behind the tendency of uniformity of present and expected future prices of a commodity in a market is the profit motive of free enterprisers. Any disturbance in prices provides a chance for higher profit rates and as the enterprises exploit it, the discrepancy in the prices reduces to minimal.

Solving the Shortage of Grains

To understand this, let us take the case of an unexpected flood or drought in an Indian region (say Bihar, or Andhra Pradesh). Because of drought, the production of wheat will be reduced (let us say it reduces by 1/12th of the average wheat production in an year). Obviously, because of the shortage in production, the price of wheat is expected to rise after say, 6 months. The enterprisers looking for making higher profits will speculate this expected price rise and will start storing the wheat at the current lower prices to save it to make higher profits in future by selling the stored wheat at higher prices.
Their speculative storing of wheat will result in a raise of current price of wheat, as there will be lesser wheat available to be sold to consumers, and the enlarged quantity of wheat for future will reduce the future prices of the wheat.
Because of current higher prices, the consumers will also start accommodating themselves to the shortage of wheat by reducing the consumption of wheat and checking the wastage. This thriftiness on behalf of consumers will allow them to sustain the time of absolute scarcity of wheat and that will further reduce the expected future price of wheat. Thus, at one hand, speculators will increase the current prices of wheat by storing it for future sales at higher prices, on the other hand, the increased available quantity of wheat for future and the thriftiness of consumers at present will reduce the expected prices of wheat in future. As a result, the maximum possible increase in price of wheat at the period of most scarcity will also be not very much more than the current price of wheat plus the storing and preserving charges of the wheat by speculators.
In absence of speculators, as most of governments illegalizes speculation for price control, the consumers will never realize the actual shortage of wheat because there will be no sign of scarcity by means of price rise and will continue consuming wheat as normal. On the other hand, although the stored wheat will satisfy the demand of consumers for first 11 months, there will be no wheat left for the next 12th month of year as the total wheat produced is already less by 1/12th of the average required for an year. Such a situation will not only make people suffer starvation but will also fail to reduce wastage when it could have been. In addition, it will provide further chances of bureaucratic governmental corruption.
The profit motive will also alleviate the situation of famine and scarcity by means of another natural force of free market that tends to equalize the price of a commodity at all places. At a time when Andhra Pradesh or Bihar is suffering famine and food shortage, the dealers at other parts (say Uttar Pradesh, Punjab or Tamil Nadu) will seek higher profit rates by selling their stored wheat to the consumers in Bihar or Andhra Pradesh. This will result in a slight increase in price of wheat at the local markets while the increase quantity of wheat available for Bihar or Andhra Pradesh consumers will reduce the unexpected rise in price of wheat at markets there. Thus, the shortage of wheat at a region will be spread to whole India and hence will reduce its effect to minimal, all will share the increase in price of wheat, and that will reduce any extra burden on the consumers of famine suffering area to negligible.
The speculators cannot store the wheat for more than a period of 12 months as by that time, the new crop of wheat will arrive in the market and that will reduce the price of wheat to normal.

Issue of Oil Shortage because of Corrupt Oil Barons

The same principles of free market will also tackle any unwanted situation in the market of crude oil and petroleum or any storable commodity.
In the previous post, while discussing the Market Anarchy , one of my friends raised the issue of Oil Barons, asking what will happen to free market if the Arab Oil Barons tries to control the market because of their influence on oil production.
Let us assume that all Oil Barons of Arab makes a union and tries to control the free market by imposing an artificial scarcity of crude oil (although this is impossible because reducing supply of oil will reduce all income of those oil barons as they have no other means of profitable production).
The speculators of free market will certainly foresee the future shortage of oil and will maintain their oil storage to make higher profits. That will obviously increase the current prices of available oil and hence will introduce the thriftiness in consumers, making them more able to sustain the period of oil shortage. Consequently, it will reduce the chances of unexpected increase in price of oil at extreme periods too.
On the other hand, Indian free market will also tend to increase its oil production to make higher profits. In addition, profit motive will tend the oil producers of other nations (like USA or Russia etc) to sell their oil to the Indian market. That will obviously tend to spread the scarcity of oil through out the world and hence will assuage the problems of Indian market. Hence, although the economy of India and actually whole world, will suffer a comparable loss but that would not be of any considerable degrees. On the other hand, Oil Barons depend only on oil production, their loss at not selling the oil will be huge and directly pointed towards them, and that will break their union.
Conclusion: A free market inadvertently safeguards itself against any sort of scarcity of any commodity by means of the profit motivated market forces. As speculators guard the market and hence the well-being of consumers as true and honest soldiers (as their vested profits and interests are strictly attached with the consumers), the free market necessarily remains free of any discrepancy in the prices of any commodity.
Even the administrators of mixed economy have realizes the power of forces of free market that is why Indian government issued allowance of speculations over wheat few months ago. Certainly, it is a positive step towards the Free Market.

Continuous Economic Progress is the Cure of Poverty

Unpretentious Diva — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 08:56:44 +0000

The only practical solution to remedy the problem of poverty is undoubtedly the increase in productivity of individuals, workers and the market as whole. As productivity of individual workers and the market depends on the rate of technical advancement, inventions and innovations in the process of production, the most fundamental necessity to eradicate poverty is to provide a system for maximum possible technical advancement, inventions and innovations.
A free society working on laissez-faire free market capitalism provides the impetus to continuous economic progress by means of the profit motive that acts as the agent of continuous progress in production.

Cycle of profit motivated Innovations

To make profits above average and hence to be successful businessmen, entrepreneurs need to foresee changes in consumers demand before their competitors, to provide new improved products in the market ahead of their competitors or to cut the cost of production before their competitors may do that. Eventually, every innovation becomes general and the other producers and businessmen also either adapt the innovation or improve it further. Thus, the profits of the first businessman who introduced the invention decrease again. The only way for him and others to make higher profits again is to introduce further innovative improvements in the production and quality of products to satisfy the consumers demand at further lower prices. Thus, for any firm to continue making above average profits, it must frequently outrun its competitors and must act as an agent of continuous economic progress.
The competition for making higher profits increases the total production of market many folds and decreases the poverty of masses. A firm that brings upon an innovation in production increases its production, sales revenues and profits at the expense of the other producers who are not yet able to increase their production. Consumers shift to the products of that firm because it has better or equally good product to provide them at considerably lesser prices. The innovator hence makes outrageously high profits while other producers’ lower profits or outright losses compels them either to renovate and improve their production or to duplicate the innovation brought upon by the first producer. In a free-market, innovations hence, are not only necessary to make higher profits, rather they are necessary to make any profit at all, if no innovation and improvement, one may loose his business, profit and consumers totally. As the innovation becomes general, the total production of market increases manifolds, increased supply of products decreases the selling prices, and hence reduces poverty to great extent. Furthermore, generalization of innovation and decreased selling prices reduces the profit of producers and hence compel them to modernize, improve and invent further to bring more satisfaction for the consumers. The result obviously comes out to be in favor of consumers that may gain the better products at lesser prices and this is reduction of poverty. Thus, free market provides the profit impetus to innovate, improve production, and hence reduce poverty of masses. In addition, a special profit of innovation tends to disappear as the innovation become general and every other producer adopts them. In order to maintain higher profits, every producer who want to keep maintaining higher profits to longer periods need to repeatedly innovate and improve the production and hence bring down the poverty in masses.
In absence of freedom as the government regulates the market and bar down the profits, this impetus for innovation and invention decreases substantially and the consumers suffer poverty.

Government regulation is unable to provide impetus for economic progress

In a free market, the production and business is open to everyone. Even a penniless individual newcomer may start his new venture and bring upon innovative techniques of production to make profits. Those who have innovative ideas but lacks investment to implement can offer partnership to others who may invest in their ventures. A free market capitalist society provides enormous resources of investment for the new innovative ideas and that is absolutely impossible in a government regulated mixed socialist economy. In a free-market, where an innovative individual (though he has no money) need only to convince some of the financiers to invest in his innovative ideas, easily gets a chance to progress. In addition, the financiers keep looking and encouraging the innovators for making higher profits as that is necessary for them.
On the other hand, in a socialized government regulated market, the innovator need to convince everyone, a majority or at least a significant minority of his fellow citizens in order to implement his innovation. Even if he succeeds anyhow to convince the majority (most of whom have no idea of production process and innovation), he may not be able to get necessary finance because of government licensing system. Furthermore, while in a free-market he can have any preferable and most profitable agreement of partnership with the few financiers, in case of regulated market, he has no way to bargain for his individual profits as government confiscates his profits for the cause of the majority.
Thus, the government regulated system is such that no new innovator actually feels it profitable to devote his hardship and intellect to actually innovate, as he may never be able to make any high profits. In addition, even if some young innovator tries to bring upon innovation and improved changes, he may never succeed because of the bureaucracy, license raj, and political corruption. In such scenario, only a few already established corporatists that enjoys the government support may succeed in bringing upon any innovation an hence the common man always fails to make any fortune on behalf of his inventive innovation. Furthermore, as such system discourages any innovative improvement, the businessmen of such mixed economy regulated market not only suffers lack of increase in production, they are forced to adapt the already introduced innovation in other freer markets.

India lacks Innovation because Government actually hampers any impetus for innovation

Once a friend asked me, why India fails in introducing any remarkable innovation or invention in market? The answer lies here; Indian market is not free enough and hence is unable to provide the required impetus necessary to bring any inventive innovation to increase production by itself. Another friend complained that in India people tend to copy or duplicate others innovation rather than engage their energies in innovating techniques further by themselves. The complaint may be true, and the reason is only that. Government actually hampers any impetus for innovation, while the world market forces Indian producers (the government supported corporatists) to duplicate the innovations brought upon by the entrepreneurs and innovators of other freer markets.
The more freedom a government institution provides to the market, the more innovation and invention that market brings upon to the civilization. Even Indian government realized this fact after 1991 and hence adopted the process of disinvestment and freeing up the market. As the Indian market, producers and individual innovators will get more freedom to make use of the profit impetus of free market, they will experience their increased potential to bring upon major innovative inventions in every sector of production and general life.
Individual Freedom is the mother of progressive innovation and that is necessary for civilization to be free of corruption, poverty, wastage of resources and scarcity.

Abolition of Cost is Cause of Corruption

Unpretentious Diva — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 01:51:24 +0000

Often the politicians assume that it is their responsibility to provide certain services like health care or education for the needy on behalf of the compulsory tax collected from the common citizen. Thus, they propose the single payer socialized Universal Health Care System or Universal Education System with the theme of Education for All, where everybody is free to take free advantages of the medical care or education system, while government pays for the cost of it. The general intention of such politicians who exhort such an idea is to gain the public vote; it is nothing different than bribing the voters monetarily in order to get their votes to make a government. Yet, the politicians are clever clowns, they never let the voters to realize their real intentions, rather they propagandize about the socialized system and suggest that it benefits the poor of the nation. The results obviously turn out to be opposite.

The Socialized Medicines

The idea behind socialized medicines is the forced economic equality of citizens, i.e. no matter you have earned money, you cannot have any better medical treatment than the lazy person who never thought of earning and saving for his medical security. Thus, the socialization of medicines is not only the abolition of causality of individual efforts and his earnings; it is abolition of the cost in spending of income.
As visits to doctor are free to individuals while the taxpayers collectively pays for them in socialized system, each individual realizes the benefit of his visit to the doctor, while millions of taxpayers pays for the visit. Obviously it is an insignificant amount, thus every individual is encouraged to take advantage of the system without considering the wastage. As a result, the number of visits to doctor increases abruptly. The absence of cost to the individual patient results in an enormous increase in the medical tests, hospitalization and surgeries performed, most of which remains unnecessary and that adds to the cost of system furthermore, also the system requires a huge bureaucracy to administer it and that further increases corruption and the cost to the collective. The result of the system is simply to raise the fees of doctors and medical facilities and to create scarcity of hospital beds and doctor’s time. The redundant medical tests and surgeries performed often delays the meeting of genuine needs of the patients and many a times, it becomes impossible for the patient to actually get the required treatment.
To solve out these problems, government thoroughly bureaucratize the medical field by controlling the doctors’ wages and price control of medicines, government also restricts doctors from practicing freely. Ultimately, the profession of doctor and medicines becomes unattractive and unprofitable and the talented individuals prefer not to opt for it. That further creates scarcity of efficient doctors. As government has no rational way to determine the necessary treatment in any individual case, the doctors starts denying the necessary treatment for the people, thus increases corruption.

Socialized System against Advancement of Technology

My Healthcare My Choice

As the total cost of the medical care for the collective populace becomes unbearable and beyond the budget of government and scarcity of doctors, researchers and practitioners also increases the problems, government eventually starts opposing the advancement in medical technology. Any new technology, such as implantation of artificial heart proves to be major threat to the government’s budget. The free market incentives that work to reduce the cost of such new technologies before it may become available to the common mass are absent under socialized system. As government in no way can afford providing such technology to the masses freely, it actually starts opposing and restricting in advancement of new medical technology.
Furthermore, government deliberately excludes many categories of medical procedures ranging from cosmetic surgeries to bypass surgeries in order to contain the collective price of the Universal Medical Care System. Thus, people who could have afforded such medical procedures for their own help by their own money in free market are denied to have such facilities in socialized system.

Increase in Bureaucratic Corruption

As the Free Health Care System results in enormously increased demand of services and scarcity of doctors, medical facilities, hospital beds and resources, the medical sector becomes the free zone for political and bureaucratic corruption. As politicians and government official realizes that government cannot satisfy the demand of citizens, they start taking advantages of the situation through bribery, frauds and corruption. In order to contain the spending on collective medical care of whole populace and to increase the profits of the corrupt politicians, bureaucrats and government officials’ including doctors, government begins denying and prohibiting necessary medical procedures too to the common person. Not only the medical advancement is reduced and opposed by government, it also starts denying medical services to those citizens whom the government considers as only marginally valuable to the nation, such as infants or aged. As aged and infants does not pay any additional tax to the government budget, while their necessary demands of medical are high, they suffer neglect. On the other hand, government keep increasing taxes on the taxpayer citizens on the name of trying to provide necessary treatments for the poor, old and infants. Thus, the same socialized medical system that begins with an aim to provide funds for medical care of poor, infants and aged, turns out to be a sacrificial citadel for them.
To believe that there can be something like “free lunch” is a great mistake. If government promises for free lunch, no one should be surprised to find out that it increases malnutrition and starvation. He may find himself on short rations of government in order to have fund for those whom the government considers more valuable than him on social and political priority. Thus, such socialized free-health care, or free-education for all, or free-lunch, food, water for the poor and underprivileged often proves to be phoney, corrupt and inefficient. Yet, government keep propagandizing such issues and programs just in order to keep its hold on political power and vote bank of the masses. Ultimately, all this increases extreme corruption in the system, and poverty and scarcity of resources and services for the masses. In order to reduce and ultimately remove the problem of corruption in India, Indians need to realize the irrationality of collectivism and to abolish it instead of abolishing the causation and cost of individual earning and living.
Huge number of such socialized programs including Universal Medical Care, Education for All, food for al, minimum wage rates and employment for all run by government in India are the actual cause of extreme corruption that we Indian suffers.
The POTUS Barack Obama and his Democrat comrades are also trying to push such forced economic equality on US citizens by means of luring the citizens and propagandizing such socialized programmes of Universal Health Care, Public education for all and many other such programmes. Obviously, their motive is to gain political mileage and promising vote bank to maintain their ruling power. Yet, the American citizens should realize the irrationality of such collective systems and prefer not to be the victim.

Indian Forests: How to preserve them?

Unpretentious Diva — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 20:49:05 +0000

Jungles and forests are the backbone of a society not only because of their economical importance, as they are natural wealth, but also because of their importance in maintaining ecological equilibrium. Trees and forests help in formulating the seasons, they acts as cleanser of the air surrounding human society and help in maintaining ground water levels and water cycle too.
According to the latest state of forests report of the Forest Survey of India the actual forest cover of India is 19.27% of the geographic area. Literary, India has to meet the needs of 16% of the world’s population from 1% of the world forest resources. The same forest has also to cater for the 19% of the world cattle population. The figures themselves signify the abysmal position and point out the extreme scarcity of forests and the need for proper conservation of forest wealth.

Cause of Depletion of Indian Forests

Often it is said that increasing population is the main reason for forest depletion, yet it is a false idea. The major reason for the loss of Indian forests is the government.
Despite the fact that forests are the basic natural resources for the economical activity, Indian government since from the start, keeps full control over the Indian forests without providing any private initiative and free market incentives to preserve forests and solve out the problem of scarcity.
During the 19th century, the British government confiscated most of the Indian forests to rob them for their imperial needs. After independence, Indian government took the robber’s position and stated Indian forests as public property under the conservations of government. In 1952, some well-intentioned politicians recognized the importance of forests and declared the new forest policy aiming at maintaining 1/3rd of India’s land area under forests. Yet, just like all other governmental interventions , this initiative also proved to be futile and results came against the intentions of preserving the forests. Until 1976, the forest resource was seen as a source of earning money for the state and therefore little was spent in protecting it or looking after it and then Indian forests became a playground for political briberies, corruption and mismanagement of Indian forest ministry and department. At one hand, the government has the mighty resource in its hand to extract the wealth from it without proper procedures for recognizing the prices in accordance with profit or loss, on the other hand, government applies confiscatory taxes on citizens for maintaining the forests. Result comes out to be wastage of resources, burden on citizens and further depletion of forests.

Why Government cannot preserve Indian Forests?

Government systems are simply redundant and incapable of protecting Indian forests because such system of forest conservation lacks the incentive to preserve the forests while cutting trees down definitely provides the short term profits. Corruption in the aim of government authorities to preserve the forests is obvious as no individual has any means to feel the direct responsibility to conserve them. As nobody own any property rights on forests, nobody cares for them, on the other hand, people keep using the forests to fulfil their needs. Common person uses forest wood as basic fuel and cattle grounds while the executives often uses them for commercial wood and coal and none ever think of maintaining the equilibrium between usage and production of forests. Furthermore, a person cannot use his owned land for commercial forestation because he is not free to make profits from commercial forestation. The government authorities fail in protecting and preserving the forest because of lack of labour, security techniques while negligence, bribery, and corruption remains the basic ill of all such public resource ministries and departments.

Necessity of Privatization of Forest Resources

Trees are nothing but long-term crops and forests are similar to farmlands of those long-term crops. The forests necessarily need human endeavour for their proper growth and conservation. As human endeavor is necessary for protection and growth of forests, they are not free resources rather they are economic commodities and means of production, that is, forests are wealth and hence need to be subject of private property rights. Privatizing the forests will reduce the unbridled felling of trees because the private owners will have the responsibility to safeguard their property. The private owners will safeguard their forests with utmost sincerity and honesty because the protection and preservation of their forests will be profitable to them.
A farmer safeguards his farmland and crop because his crops are the basic means of his earnings and well-being, similarly, the private owners will have proper incentives to maintain the equilibrium of forests. At one hand, they will use the forests for commercial benefits, while they will have to maintain the growth of new trees to keep up and increase their personal earnings and profits. Entrepreneurs will not only look to provide enough derivatives from their owned forests to the market, they will have to innovate ways to increase the productivity and proper care for the maintenance of the forests.
As forests are not only scarce resources, they are scarce products of human endeavour too, the demand of forest and forest derivatives will naturally increase the supply and that will necessarily mean the increase in area and density of forest land. More and more people will become interested in forestation and attaining profits and the competitive market of forestation and forest conservation will provide ample opportunities of improvement in technique of forest protection and growth and security. Entrepreneur will look forward to convert the available wastelands to profitable forests by planting commercial trees, shrubs and herbs. As market forces will recognize and establish the importance of various trees and products of forests, the various species of trees will be preserved according to the degrees of profitability in their growth and protection and that will provide a completely planned, progressive and profitable system to conserve trees and forests.

Will Partial Privatization Help?

Partial privatization is the process of government to apply private enterprises for protecting and growing forests on contract basis while the authority essentially remains in government hand. Such government interventions often prove out to be futile because of the short term of contracted property rights. If the private contractor of a forest knows that he may earn the benefits of the forest only for a limited time period (say five years) he will certainly look to decrease the amount of spending in growing and preserving the trees and forests, rather he will look forward to attain maximum profits of the existing trees and forests by exploiting them irrationally. It will be no different from the complete authority of government over forests while it will increase the possibilities of corruption and negligence in maintenance of forests.
Conclusion: The incapability of government control over forests to conserve them is beyond any doubts, partial privatization of forests will also fail to provide better results. The only way to conserve trees and forests is to let the private initiative and free market introduce the incentives of profits in forest management and growth of trees. Privatization of forests will not only reduce the cutting of trees for their rational usage, it will provide incentives for planting further trees and new forests. Property rights on forests will increase the endeavours of individuals in preserving and growing the forest land.

On Making A difference

Deadman On Campus — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 12:04:31 +0000

Our country India has a long history of Socialistic policies. Jawaharlal Nehru, the first prime minister India, and an admirer of Stalin, modeled the nation on the brutal slaughterhouse of Soviet Union-In the name of intelligent planning. It didn’t occur to him that planning of a central authority tampers with the plans of individual citizens. Rulers who came after him weren’t any better . It is true that things have improved slightly in the past few decades as of economic reforms, but the essentials remain the same. The concept of individual liberty is unknown to most Indian citizens.

Most Indians are unsatisfied with the state of things. They long for a radical change. Some of them are conceited enough to think that they can change things for good if they rise to positions of power. Though some are slightly aware of the inherent systemic problem, their understanding is not deep enough. They fail to realize the complex level of understanding of social sciences it takes to bring about a change.They step into action instead of trying to bring about a radical change in the mindset of people through intellectual means.Recently I came across the manifesto of such a political party, Jago . What makes this political party different is that it pays lip service to the free market economy. They vaguely understand the importance of a high level of economic freedom, but are unable to understand the inherent contradictions in their views. Let us analyze their political positions in some detail.

People would be granted individual freedom over and above a social minimum-which means: basic survival needs such as food, clothing, shelter, education, healthcare and security needs will be met by the Government.
None of these basic services grow in the nature, or are absorbed from the atmosphere. They are produced by individuals. If some people are to be provided with these facilities, who is to produce them? What if people who produce them are not willing to share their produce? Will they be purged? Inflating the rights of man can’t be done without an outright infringement of their fundamental rights. Often people talk of the right to a free education or health care, for instance, without giving a moments thought to its cost. When some sane person opposes their Utopian dreams, he is casted off as a person who doesn’t care for the poor. It should be noted here that these services are demanded as people should have the freedom to pursue their self interest. Nothing is said of the self interest of their innocent victims. The fact that it is not in ones rational self interest to gain the unearned too, is evaded. So much for their belief that the free market economy is ethically superior. The “basic minimum” can’t be provided without mulcting the tax payer, and hampering capital accumulation. It is capital accumulation which makes high wages and a high living standard possible. The welfare state is totally incompatible with the free market economy. One can’t choose both. Both are mutually exclusive possibilities. They have made their choice. There is no other.
Soviet Russia made impressive initial progress.
This is a distortion of facts. It concedes too much. The majority of people were starving themselves to death even in the initial phase. If even enemies of collectivism are duped by such propaganda, we can’t blame the communists for spreading them.
A Government is necessary for maintenance of law & order, enforcement of contracts, justice, defense, currency.
All these services could be provided by the market, and in a much efficient manner. Apart from the inherent immorality of taxing people and monopolizing these sectors, it should be said that Government is an inefficient organization. As law, defense , police and currency are presently provided by the Government, most people have problems imagining how this could be done by the market. However our living standards shouldn’t be dragged down to the level of imagination of such retards. It is an elementary fact of economics that monopolies are bad for the consumer. It applies to defense , law and police too. Government control of money and credit , as we all know, had led to continuous debasement of money. Arbitrary credit expansion in not possible under a free, full reserve banking system based on Gold Standard.
Reservations would be replaced with free and mandatory school education.
One interesting thing about most opponents of reservations is that they propose quality primary education as the solution. They are too dull to realize that free primary education is as, or more harmful than reservations. Both infringes personal freedom. There should be no such free gifts. Mandatory school education is abduction. Children of parents willing to homeschool their children, shouldn’t be dragged to Schools which are similar to prisons. Subsidization of education would only prevent most children from acquiring the education they would have acquired, if left alone.
There would be only one syllabus for all schools and only one all India level examination conducted by only one board at class 12.
Potential dictators want to decide what is good for the society, and ram it down their throats. The education scene can’t be improved by forcing everyone into the same mold. There is great variation in the skills and interests of various children. A common syllabus decreed by the Government does injustice to all sorts of children. They should be free to pursue their interests. Only competition among various modes of education for Objective truth would improve the state of education.
All infiltrators coming from Bangladesh and other countries are to be identified & punished.
No one with the slightest understanding of the concept of liberty would support this. Government doesn’t rightfully own all the land of a country, hence and shouldn’t have the right to have a say in these issues.
Capital punishment for major crimes.
Capital punishment is barbaric. One can’t be absolutely certain that a person has committed a crime in many cases. So, it makes little sense to take their lives off. Moroever, history proves that such severe punishment doesn’t prevent the likelihood of crimes.
All voters will get Rs. 800/- per month
No comment is necessary on such stupid schemes.
Low tax rate would mean better compliance, more revenue and less corruption.
It seems this conclusion is based on the fallacious “Laffer curve”. 1) It is not at all evident why Government revenues should be maximised. 2) There is no guarantee that a reduction in the tax rate would increase the revenue. It depends on the scale of reduction and several other factors.
The function of the government would be to see that no deforestation takes place.
As long as there is demand for wood, people will grow trees. It is a profitable business. If a particular owner stops producing them, there is an opportunity to make profits and others will. Every good that is in demand will be provided by the market. If no one produces wood, someone can easily make profits by producing it. There will always be people willing to wait for years if it is necessary. There is no shortage of people to engage in such activities. Who is more likely to preserve a land and grow trees-A bureaucrat who has no incentive to preserve a land, and has to exploit the land as much as possible during his time, or a private owner who has every incentive to preserve the land, and grow trees as his revenues from the land depends on the preservation of that land?
People are more likely to preserve trees when it is profitable to do so. In Europe, where private ownership of forests is far more common (Unlike in the US) less people complain of destruction of timber resources.
Population growth should be controlled.
Population doesn’t impede development. New York City is highly populated. But a lot of wealth is being generated there. Japan is thickly populated. It is a very rich country.Holland, Monaco, Britain and Liechtenstein are thickly populated.Europe is a thickly populated continent, next only to asia, whereas African countries are heavily underpopulated. Hong Kong has a higher density of population, yet it is much wealthier than India and China. Most people point out the large population of India and China, for instance, as a cause of underdevelopment.That’s plain nonsense. It is the lack of economic freedom, not population which makes countries poor.
Ban on child-labor will be strictly enforced.
Banning child labor would only throw some many children and poor families into poverty and starvation. Children join the labor force only when it is an economic necessity. A ban on child labor doesn’t change the fact that these children badly need those jobs. Such children , in the words of Ludwig Von Mises, would “infest the country as vagabonds, beggars, tramps, robbers and prostitutes.”

By now, it should be evident that the goals of Jago party has nothing to do with Individual freedom. Libertarians should think twice before supporting such inconsistent defenders of Individual freedom. It would only harm our cause of pure liberty.

Failure of Democracy!

Unpretentious Diva — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 22:10:05 +0000

Government monopoly in any form including limited government system represents partial slavery to some order

The theme of a democratic government unalterably remains as Government of people, by the people and for the people. Democracy provides a government that is subject to the will of people, yet the fact is it submerges the power of an individual to decide for his life in the colossal mass of the voters. The Individual citizen becomes insignificant with no authority to govern his life, and no say in the policies decided by government. Thus, the assertion of socialists supporting the interventions and regulation of government in market, that “the government is still controlled by us” becomes a mockery.

Why Participation of Indian citizens in elections is reducing?

In a democracy if a majority of voting population ranging from several hundreds to several hundred millions (depending on level of election –Municipal, state, or national) vote against an existing policy, the policy will likely be changed, replaced or aborted. That does not mean that electorate controls government. As far as an individual citizen is concerned, he has no control over the democratic majority government. For example, in the government controlled retirement savings account and pension policies, if an individual wishes to use his earned savings to pay for the home he want to buy, he must wait until tens of millions of other citizens agrees to join with him to bring about a change in policy to make it possible. He would have to wait for very basic decisions to be made, if a set of parents in a village decide to have a school in their village where their children may get elementary education instead of going to another village 10 miles away, they may be forced to wait until whole majority voters of the city municipality under which the village comes, may decide to make an elementary school in that village. An Individual cannot decide to speculate and accumulate stocks of commodities to ascertain future profits, he cannot decide what prices he can demand from the consumers for his own products, he cannot decide to free a certain sector of production of varied levies and taxes (and subsidies) until he may not gain the approval of big chunk of voters.
If a set of intelligent voters want to restrict government monopoly over printing of fiat currency , they will have to wait until whole populace of the country realizes the basic flaw in fiat currency. An individual by his own cannot decide what wages he may give to a worker, he cannot decide whom he should consider poor or whom he should provide voluntary charity or benevolent help as all relief funds are controlled by the majority rule government and so on. Since an individual electorate have no significant control over government bribery, corruption and frauds are common illnesses of democracies.
As people are realizing the fact that government control under democracy means collectivization of power and hence is a violation of Individual liberty and freedom of choice, that majority government robs the citizens of their power of self-governance and self-responsibility, they voluntarily become uninterested in political elections as they know that their mere voting is in no way capable of bringing about any progressive change.

Destruction of Individual Causal Role in Democracy

Democracy destroys the causal role of an individual. Instead of being the cause of his own success, well-being, and development, he becomes dependent on the majority rule, as until the majority will not agree with him, he cannot act upon his decisions and choices. The destruction of Individual causal role in his life signifies the violation of Individual freedom.
Individual freedom and his right of self-governance are the basic requirement for a definite progressive and developed system of division of labour . Thus, democracy robs and reduces the power of an individual to be the cause of varied economic achievements, success or failure.

Incompatibility of Democracy with Division of Labour causing Poverty

Violation of individual freedom by democratic majorities is as evil as the violations of individual freedom imposed by a tyrant dictator.

It is an established fact that the prosperity and productivity of a society hugely depends on the progressive division of labour. Collectivism in any form (feudalism, communism, dictatorship, democracy, socialism, theocracy etc) is incompatible with “division of labour” as such systems do not recognize importance of freedom , self-ownership and property rights. It destroys the individual causation and creates “forced economic inequalities”. Collectivism demands that everyone think and act as a unit and provides no space for the vast differentiation and individuation of the knowledge on which the division of labour resides and hence any collectivist society suffers lack of production, retarded process of development, poverty and wastage of human labour, it kills hard-work, honesty, genius and talent.
In a socialist bureaucratic system (like that of former USSR or China) the specialized dictators represented by “central planners” controls all the resources and means of production, as irrespective of their specialization, they lacks knowledge in compared to the knowledge pool provided by free society under division of labour, they never achieves enough rate of progress and suffers impoverishment, poverty, injustice and unhealthy conditions for the common man. In a democratic socialist system (like that of India), situations are even adverse as the specific set of specialized dictators is replaced by the ignorant, unspecialized masses representing majority rule. When such system tries to provide a systematically regulated division of labour, it results in contradicting partial planning under the head of different ministries trying to control different sets of productions and that further provides economic chaos, corruption, bribery and further partial slavery of individuals making them to suffer poverty and extreme scarcity of wealth.

Cure of the Problem

Since the fall of Soviet Union, India is gradually turning from collectivism towards principles of self-ownership, individualism and division of labour, and hence the standards of living is improving, of Indian society are also improving. As the Indian government is adopting disinvestment procedure and providing freedom for market and individuals, the proficiency of labour is increasing. The progress itself is a validating example of the fact that government interventions in market cause poverty, reduction in production and impoverishment of citizens while individual freedom, and property rights of means of production brings progress, prosperity and bettering living standards of citizens. Thus, the cure is definitely freedom of citizens establishing a free society in India, that is Limited government system, where the only purpose of government remains to safeguard individual freedom, property rights, restrict initiation of force and to provide justice, and peace by providing a democratic system controlling police and law bodies, strictly maintaining the principles of non-initiation of aggression, self-ownership and property rights, and all means of production including roads, railways, natural resources etc be privatized.
Private security and arbitrary third party justice system would further reduce the role of government only to provide security against external dangers in form of national defence, it would be further move towards anarchocapitalism establishing individual right of self governance and self-responsibility.
It is a basic fact that government monopoly in any form including limited government system represents partial slavery to some order and incurs poverty and destruction of wealth and means of production, for progress and betterment of citizens, freedom lovers advocates Anarchocapitalism rather than government limiting individual freedom.