Charles W Elliot once said that “Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counsellors, and the most patient of teachers.”
It is hard to argue against that, books are the most patient and wisest teachers. We learn a lot deal of things through books, books are the building blocks of our ideas and though process. Books actually are the raw material provided to us by the precedent generations to use their experiences, knowledge and desire to explore better terrains of life. Books are not only the best friends; they are a challenge for us, a challenge to develop more, to beautify the ideas further, or to at least learn that, which already has been mentioned, searched, thought and quoted in the book.
Books give us a chance to look further, think forward, and create better and revolute the life to achieve new heights.
A book can change your life, giving you new dimensions to think forward and create your own ventures to relish and enjoy. A book let you live more than one life, it let you explore the territories of ideas you never had thought of.
Here, I will discussing some of the books that I consider most influential and mind boggling, that may change the ways you think, live and act in your life. These books are full of ethical knowledge and moral rightness; these books teach us to analyze the thin line between the “wrong” and the “right”.
No, I am not going to discuss some epic of some old religion. I do not want to discuss Vedas, Ramayana, or Geeta. I will not say that to be a true honest individual you need to read Quran or Bible. Rather, I am going to discuss some practical books with no affinity to mystique or irrationalism. It would be wrong to say that reading these books is essential. Reading any book cannot be essential for anyone. If all the books, all the knowledge that we use as raw material for our living, that never was discovered or created by us, but we got it all as our privilege to use and improve further, are destroyed some day, then also, human will not stop existing. They will not stop existing morally and rationally too. Rationality, or morality do not come through books, it ignites within your own. Until human does not stop using their mind to lead their life to better ways, books cannot be essential. Yet, books have their own importance. They act as the raw material to be used for making a better new world.
Therefore, here is my list of some of the greatest books I read since my childhood and found them most influential in shaping a world of my own and to letting me use my mind to create some or more. I am sure that anyone who will ever go through these books, will find him/herself more able to understand his/her own existence and will be able to understand the meaning of freedom, and life in a free society, free market.

The Machinery of Freedom: A Guide to Radical Capitalism: David Friedman

David Friedman, the freer son of Mr. Milton Friedman wrote this excellent work in 1973. Milton Friedman himself is known as one of the premier economist with Libertarian and anti-Keynesian approach. Yet, David Friedman is way apart from his father. One may feel that David Friedman learnt Economics not from his father, but from the Genius Ludwig Von Mises himself(UPDATE: Just to clarify, he did not). Machinery of Freedom contains a range 48 excellent essays that will not only entertain and provoke your mind to think rationally, but provide you a lot more to think and explore by your own. The essays are short and ranges from defence of property rights and private property to strictest modes of anarchocapitalism. He discusses the exploration of private law enforcement in a free society to great extent and provides a good look on the issue. You will certainly have a better understanding of a model of Free Society after reading the book. The wonderful thing is David Friedman seems to be hugely influenced by Ayn Rand. His assumption, that mostly people are rational and if someone is irrational, he will loose in the free society and the loss will be the teacher to achieve rational behaviour.

The Two Treaties of Government: John Locke

The founding father of classical liberalism or Libertarianism, John Locke still remains the most influential philosopher and thinker of all times. Although, his first treaty seems to be obsolete now, because the first treaty was the direct and vehement opposition to the irrational and obnoxious support of Robert Filmer to Monarchy who claimed that, men are naturally slaves and hence monarchy is the only justifiable government. The Second treaty of the book makes it a grand work. One can find the most systematic and logical defence of Individual Liberty in that book in such an inspiring way that will make you say that John Locke is way better than Aristotle.
The book was written in 1680, yet it is not obsolete. Even now, most of the governments throughout the world keep harassing individual liberty on the name of democracy. The book makes one learn the true nature of proper Miniarchy.

Atlas Shrugged: Ayn Rand

One can find no better book on Individual Liberty, Rationality and clarity of conscious other than this great Magnum Opus of Ayn Rand. Fountainhead lays the foundation of libertarianism and Atlas Shrugged stands on it as the basic structure of Free Society. The book is still one of the largest selling books throughout the world even after 53 years of its publication. The book is timeless, it will never die, it will never loose its shine and ability to make minds sharper, better, proper and rational. The book clarifies most of the dilemmas of a common reader living in a world where totalitarian governments are harping on controlling the masses, where the individual is faceless and individuality is curse. Atlas Shrugged shows you who is exploiter and who is being exploited and leaves you to decide whether you want to be the exploiter, or will you accept being exploited. The book prompts you to strike against the exploiters. The book fills you up with the energy and idea of liberty for your own self. Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged are the best books one can ever read. Ohh by the way, have a reality check, feminists cannot accept these books. Ayn Rand has mocked feminism, just like all other form of collectivism, and being a woman, I am grateful to her for doing that.

Economics in One Lesson: Henry Hazlitt

Nothing can be better than this marvel by Henry Hazlitt, the American Philosopher and economist. The book has the potential to make you learn the actual economics of practical life and practical world in most easy way. The book makes you love economics. Hazlitt, through his immense simplicity explains how Free Market promotes efficiency and how government interference in market ruins the system and creates chaos. Time will Run Back and Economics in One Lesson are the two books that will not only answer all your questions regarding inflation, price control, minimum wages, unions and every other thing that influence your daily life, but will also provide you an assurance that the things can be better. The book leads you to start thinking and striving for Liberty to make world better.

Human Action: Ludwig Von Mises

Ludwig Von Mises is undisputable founding father of Austrian Economics. He along with Ayn Rand is the founding father of modern libertarian approach too. Human Action is the book that will clarify all the illusions about the stories of communism, socialism and collective welfarism. His explanation of Industrial revolution and 2nd world war and the economic effects of the situation are revolutionary. There are many who keep giving excuses for Capitalism and Individual Freedom, the frontier fighter for the sake of Individual Liberty and Human moral rights was Ludwig Von Mises.
He was undoubtedly the best philosopher of 20th century along with Ayn Rand.
In Human Action, he introduces Praxeology as the major foundation of social sciences and economic laws. He further ascertains that economic laws can only be arrived at by means of methodological individualism. He was vehement opponent of positivism, or materialism as a foundation of social sciences and morality. He was one of the truest Individualist, Rationalist and Objectivist. The major theme of all his books is inflation and monetary economics and the rational comparison between Free Society and Government controlled society. Once he said

Efforts to realize Socialism lead only to the destruction of society. Factories, mines, and railways will come to a standstill.

The failure of USSR makes him the sage who knew the future. His work on theoretical Business Cycles explains all the causes of repeatable Depressions.

The Wealth of Nations: Adam Smith

Everybody knows a little or more about this famous book by Adam Smith. He was the first to explain the importance of social distribution. His example of story of pin-making is used every now and then. People write a lot about the “Invisible Hand” and murk up the essence of the book. The book clearly states that government is redundant and it should let the market free.

The Animal Farm: George Orwell

George Orwell was one of the best Dystopian. His book 1984 is world famous along with Aldous Huxley’s “A Brave New World“. One can easily see how both of these writers used and criticized the Pavlovian learning and conditioning, and how they showed the world that the way it is going through will lead to certain destruction. Orwell used to say that 1984 was written to change the view of the people about the society they should try to create. The book is a masterpiece undoubtedly, but The Animal Farm is much better book on my scale. The Animal Farm is direct attack on the egalitarianism and collectivism. The Animal Farm, along with 1984 and Aldous Huxley’s “A Brave New World” should be read to understand why government is evil, and why people should not sacrifice individualism for the illusionist welfarism.

The Law: Bastiat

Frederick Bastiat was one of the most prominent economists of 19th century who proposed and supported Laissez-Faire system and Individualism strongly. Amongst his all great works, The Law is one of the best. The book suggests the proper nature of Law and the role of legal bodies in a Free Society. The book was published in 1849, the same year when Frederick Bastiat passed away. The book suggest that the proper role of the law is the protection of Individual right, Liberty, defence of life and property. Bastiat and John Locke are the founding teachers of Property rights and Individualism; they are major inspiration behind all forms of Libertarianism.

Free to Choose: Milton Friedman

We started the list with the book of David Freidman on radical libertarianism; we will end with a book by his Father Milton Friedman. The Nobel Laureate, prominent libertarian and opponent of Keynesian economics discusses the Government sponsored education in this book along with many other issues. With his easy logic, he explains how and why big governments are a curse, a big problem. Obviously, he accepts that small governments are smaller “problem”. He shows that government-sponsored education is not improving and they cannot improve. The book is a classical approach for the defence of human freedom against the state.

There are many other books that excellently explain individual liberty and the reason to defend it; I might have missed a few of them. The mentioned above are those that I consider the best ones at the moment.
http://couplewriters.blogspot.com/

http://couplewriters.blogspot.com/
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.
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)¹ . 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.

1. Howard Roark is the central character of the epic novel, the masterpiece of Ayn Rand, the Fountainhead Peter Keating is another character of same book, there’s a movie based on the novel with same title The Fountainhead [↩]

Since last three days, we are trying to scrutinize the philosophical and political aspects of Mahatma Gandhi.
It does not matter whether Gandhi ji were Libertarian or not, it is a basic truth that his experiment with non-violence, to assert the fundamental idea of liberty were a success, and they can be used further to explain essentials of libertarianism to much greater degrees in masses. That is all true, yet we must understand that we cannot afford those ideas of Gandhi, which obviously tampers the individual freedom.
It is true that Gandhi never supported idea of property rights, he considered aspiration and acquisition of wealth and profits as evil, he consider an individual’s strive for his personal well-being and pursuit of pleasure as sinful.
Not every Siddhartha will give away his inherited pleasures for the search of truth and become a Gautama Buddha.
One should understand that all those who pay Income taxes and sales taxes do not consider it as any violent act or exploitation, do they? As a matter of fact, they simply pays it as their duty, their sacrifice for the good of society, people, nation of which, they are merely an insignificant part. It has been become a simple non-violent act. Anyone, who says anything against Compulsory Taxation, obviously is regarded as insane, extremist, corrupt, fraud and violent. Do people realize that it is not those who oppose taxes, or tries to avoid taxation, are corrupt; rather the taxation itself is a fraud? Do people realize that it is government coercion and nothing else because it is a fraud? No, people consider it as there duty and whenever it becomes known that someone has tried to oppose or avoid taxes, people consider him as corrupt, mischievous, exploiter and violent.
That is, anyone who tries to talk of economic liberty is violent.
Gandhi’s idea of decentralized government (Panchayat Raj) is also faulty because it does not provide individual liberty and obviously put forth the Central Government as the caretaker of all local governments (Panchayats) and the citizens. Citizen as his own is not supposed to get any sovereignty even under Gandhian centralized system, although, his choices will certainly increase. That is, irrespective of his support to civil liberty, Gandhi was uncertain about economic liberty and he was vehemently against judicial liberty. Criticism of Udham Singh¹ and Bhagat Singh²for by Gandhi is evident of this fact.
In addition, Gandhi was supporter of Free education and health care as fundamental right. Under Gandhian “Organized Anarchy”, he proposed something similar to that of Ayn Rand’s idea of “Voluntary Taxation” and he termed it as “Trusteeship”.
Yet, there was a difference between Ayn Rand’s Miniarchy and Gandhian “Ordered Anarchy”, Ayn Rand stressed on Individual liberty and economic freedom along with civil liberty, Gandhi feverishly supported civil liberty, he was not sure of economic liberty and philosophically, he was economic socialist, a believer of collectivism and social welfare.
Nobody is perfect, so Gandhi had his share of faults, he was obviously wrong at his economic proposition of Trusteeship and Egalitarianism. One may say that if G.D Birla, the founder of Indian National Congress was a conservative libertarian, Gandhi was moderate libertarian. Yet, who won the race?
Nehru, the socialist won the race. If Gandhi was a moderate libertarian, was he not fighting with two different enemies? One of his enemy was obviously the British imperialists, the enslavers, the other enemy of Gandhi was internal, his closest mate, socialist Nehru. The political tussles between Indian Socialists like Nehru, Vinoba Bhave, Charan Singh and others and the Indian Libertarians like G.D Birla, Jamshedji Tata, Sardar Patel, Lokmanya Tilak and others is well known.
If Gandhi ever was a Libertarian, why did he give up his libertarian stand when it was most required? Why he supported Nehru³ with all his socialist ideas against better choices? Gandhi fought against all Congress to make Nehru as the first leader, and that changed all.
System cannot be changed so easily, first it is necessary to change the attitude of masses; first, it is necessary to establish an environment of Individualism, where an Individual is not considered as a sacrificial entity for the welfare of community. Where a Gandhi is not desired to sacrifice his life for the benefits of others, where some Nathuram Godse would not kill a Gandhi.
Not all can be non-violent.
One must understand that an individual naturally lives for his own well-being, and while doing so, welfare of society as a whole becomes a reality. If one is lead with an idea to sacrifice him for the greater good of society, than no matters the sacrifice is forced, or is being subjected by means of philosophical compulsions “non-violently” it will become a bane. The reason being, not all can be Gandhi. Although Gandhi never supported physical force against anybody, but if property rights are ignored, and collective welfare is considered as incumbent on the individual citizens, if self-interest is hated and criticized, than there is no way to establish Individual liberty. One must understand that property rights are the only possible way through which the natural individual rights are expressed physically. One cannot deny and ignore property rights yet stress that he supports individual liberty.
If the established philosophy of the society is of selflessness where the individual has to sacrifice himself for the greater good of society, it will certainly become a poison for the individual. In such a scenario, anyone living a better life than your own becomes an exploiter, because he did not voluntarily share his earned wealth with others. Now, some Gandhi may criticize that “exploiter” non-violently as Kant did. Will all others remain non-violent? What is the guarantee that another Marx will not take birth from the ashes of Gandhi? Kant was a supporter of Non-violence, non-aggression, yet his philosophy of individual sacrifice for the good of society became the mother of Marxism. Why will not the Gandhian philosophy be enough fuel for the making of new stories of Robin Hood?
In order to avoid that, we need to stress on rational self-interest, we need to stress on individual rights expressed as property rights, and we need to explain the necessity of economic liberty for the individual sovereignty. Without that, Liberty is incomplete and fragile. Gandhi failed to realize that fundamental issue, that is why he, although was a moderate libertarian, although he had excellent teachers like G.D Birla and libertarian friend like Jamshedji Tata, he lost against socialist Nehru, and after that loss, whole India lost against statist Indira Gandhi. We all know how close Indira Gandhi was to Mahatma Gandhi, yet she turned out to be extremely violent. Gandhi’s philosophy was so fragile that it failed to keep the closest of his allies to be non-violent. We suffered emergency under Indira Gandhi and Sanjay Gandhi.⁴
In order to regain the strength of Libertarian project in India, we need to discard the wrong aspects of Gandhian philosophy, we need to establish the joyful right of Individual to pursue his happiness, and we need to establish individual freedom based on property rights. Obviously, we will have to use the same non-violent ways to achieve our goals. We may call it “Satyagrah” or “Non-cooperation” or “Civil disobedience”. One may call that as Gandhian way or “Gandhigiri”, I would rather call it Libertarian approach, because being a Libertarian, being a believer of non-violence, I have no other way. If Gandhi had not discovered the peaceful ways of civil disobedience, someone else might have, but without the understanding of “Rational Selfishness” and Property Rights, all peaceful demonstration will go in vain just like we lost all the strives of “Swaraj” by Indian libertarians and yielded to Indian socialists. I cannot afford myself to remain on same Gandhian path that already had been lost against Nehru’s socialism.
One more thing that I would like to mention, I could not disregard Bhagat Singh’s right to kill the murderer of Lala Lajpat Rai, whom he considered as his mentor, I could not disregard Udham Singh’s right to kill General Dyer who killed hundreds of unarmed helpless Indians at Jalian Wala Bagh. I consider those actions by Bhagat Singh and Udham Singh as their libertarian right to Justice.
Gandhi was an economic socialist, he was judicial socialist too but a civil libertarian. Bhagat Singh⁵ and Udham Singh⁶ on the other hand, were economic socialists, yet they were civil and judicial libertarians, and I am a supporter of Liberty in full sense, Civil liberty, Economic liberty and Judicial liberty.

1. Udham Singh, best Known for the assassination of Michael O’Dwyer for avenging the Jallianwalla Bagh Massacre, Wikipedia [↩]
2. Bhagat Singh, Indian Anarchist, best known avenging the death of Lala Lajpat Rai, Wikipedia [↩]
3. Breaking free of Nehru, Reason for Liberty [↩]
4. Indira Gandhi’s legacy, Operation Blue Star, Emergency law in India [↩]
5. Indian Anarchist,From May to September, 1928, Bhagat Singh serially published several articles on anarchism in Punjabi periodical Kirti. He expressed concern over misunderstanding of the concept of anarchism among the public. Singh tried to eradicate the misconception among people about anarchism. He wrote, “The people are scared of the word anarchism. The word anarchism has been abused so much that even in India revolutionaries have been called anarchist to make them unpopular.” As anarchism means absence of ruler and abolition of state, not absence of rule, Singh explained, “I think in India the idea of universal brotherhood, the Sanskrit sentence vasudhaiva kutumbakam etc., have the same meaning.” He wrote about the growth of anarchism, the “first man to explicitly propagate the theory of Anarchism was Proudhon and that is why he is called the founder of Anarchism. After him a Russian, Bakunin worked hard to spread the doctrine. He was followed by Prince Kropotkin etc, Wikipedia [↩]
6. Udham Singh, best Known for the assassination of Michael O’Dwyer for avenging the Jallianwalla Bagh Massacre, Wikipedia [↩]

Contrary to what a lot of people in west think about India and Gandhi, I know that not everybody in India likes Gandhi. In fact I grew up hating Gandhi because I was so much indoctrinated in statism that although the State tries its best to preach Gandhism, the obvious disjunct between being loyal to a state and being Gandhian pacifist makes no sense. Its really a funny thing that on 2nd of October each year, the government celebrates Gandhi’s birthday and Gandhian philosophy by prohibiting sale of liquor all across the nation, you might as well celebrate Valentine’s day by hanging all the intercaste lovers, Buddha’s birthday by drinking animal blood, and Channukka by saluting to Hitler. Even more funnier fact, recently someone filed a public interest litigation in the Supreme Court of India, requesting to make insulting Gandhi illegal and any individual who insults Gandhi be thrown in prison. People just don’t understand what Gandhian philosophy is all about.

Now when I finally understood the libertarian philosophy and the principle of non-initiation of aggression, the question which really bugs me is how do we get the liberty which we so much deserve. Its impossible to physically fight the state, its so big, and not just that, it has the most legitimacy that even though they could do the worst things to the humanity, it will all be seen in the good light of justice. I have been closely following the fight for achieving liberty in our lifetime going on in New Hampshire by the members of Free State Project. Its because of my desire to figure out the most effective way to fight the state, I have been forced to reconsider Gandhian philosophy in a new light of libertarianism.

The question in front of us is, how do we fight the mammoth in front of us. The problem isn’t only on defeating a powerful enemy, but how to eliminate a righteous enemy. Of course the state isn’t right, but it has the color of righteousness. The people believe it to be right, and just people believing that state is being excessive doesn’t solve our problems, or motivates people against the state. There are many people who believe in conspiracies regarding US government behind the 9/11 attacks, but if you ask them if should we eliminate state or eliminating the state would be a good idea to solve the problem of an evil force from our lives, most of them will answer “No, we just need to CHANGE the people in the system”.

We all realize that even if we had bigger guns than state, we could still not kill the spirit of the state, it will rise again. People would want to recreate the state. So we get this feeling that the state cannot be defeated with violence, and using violence against the state sounds like the worst possible method to fight it, but then the libertarian philosophy comes into the picture which says that its acceptable to respond to aggression with (same amounts of)aggression and not many of us really believe that if a robber comes to our house and wants to rape your wife, then allowing him to rape your wife and then turning your daughter in too, will change his mind in any way.¹

We realize that responding to a common thief with aggression makes sense, but responding to state with aggression does not make any sense. How is that? Is this an inconsistency with the libertarian philosophy(which suggests responding violence with violence as a just solution) or with the philosophy of pacifism(which suggests responding violence with non-violence).

When I reconsidered the Gandhian philosophy I realized something very important something which the Indian society and the government greatly distorts about his philosophy, that Gandhi used these philosophy against a similar environment. He was fighting a mighty British Empire which had ruled India for over 150 years until then. There were Indian soldiers in British Army, fighting FOR the government against their own people. Contrary to what we might believe, it wasn’t until 1930² that people in India made an official declaration of getting rid India of British Rule, until then it was all about home-rule or more autonomy. Until 1930 people the idea that India can be completely independent on its own was too far-fetched and radical.

The Indian people are generally very peaceful, and the call to everyone to raise weapons against the British government would not have gathered many people behind you.
What Gandhi managed to do was, he declared that he would not raise a weapon against any individual, because of this, he gained a upper moral status against the British Government. The British rule in India wasn’t really like the current US occupation in Iraq and Afghanistan, but more like current US occupation of South Korea and Japan. People continued to live their lives, do business being unaffected by the foreign army, living under British law, courts, using roads, and railroads built by British Empire. In fact India got independence in 1947 and until 1st Jan 1930 they weren’t even fighting for completely independence. I must point it out that Gandhi had been fighting the British Rule in India since 1915, before the official declaration for complete independence, Indians were merely fighting for a self-rule, like Libertarian Party and Republican Party striving for a Small government(and call for complete independence being equal to call for no government).

When Gandhi declared that he would not commit violence against any individual, leave alone British government, he made himself more righteous than the British Government. If British Government orders to shoots a violent revolutionary, its soldiers would readily comply, they will follow the orders because in their own head they are thinking that they are preserving themselves, if they don’t shoot this violent revolutionary he will shoot them. So in their own head, it becomes a very easy decision to make. On the other hand, when the government gives the order to shoot someone like Gandhi, they don’t want to shoot a guy who would not harm an ant. Even if someone DOES end up shooting Gandhi, one fallen revolutionary may raise 10 more revolutionaries, but one fallen Gandhi, raises 1000s of people to take his place, because most people do not sympathize with the violent revolutionary, even if they do they rationalize it as he chose the path of gun, and he was shot down by a gun, but when Gandhi, a guy who chose to never commit violence, is killed by the state, then people realize that nobody is safe, there must be something greatly wrong with the state.

The British government never tried to kill Gandhi, because they understood it pretty well that if they did it, their empire will lose all its legitimacy, and the only way a few handful people can rule millions of people is through legitimacy(or the color of legitimacy).

So what is the guiding principle here, how do we establish consistency between being Gandhian and being libertarian. It all comes down to a simple principle which makes Gandhian non-violence consistent with libertarianism. If the aggressor’s right and wrong are twisted around, his polarities are reversed, if what you consider right is wrong for them, and what you consider is wrong is right for them, then there is no way you could win against them by responding to their aggression with more aggression.

Just consider it for a minute. If a thief tries to steal something you own, he knows he is committing a crime, he is trying to acquire something he does not own. If you punish him for his crime or acquire restitution, then that would be a possible way to deal with that thief. But if a government employee comes to your property to take away your house for non-payment of property taxes, he thinks he is just following the orders, and he is the righteous individual, you are the aggressor against the society by not paying your property taxes like everybody else.

If you try to punish that government employee, by trying to take away his property, him and his peers will just come after you because now its a matter of their own life and property, and they will commit more aggression against you.

If a cop tries to arrest you for some made up victim-less crime and you shoot him back, you don’t defeat the state, his son, his wife, his friends will all see him has a brave martyr shot by some violent drug dealer in the line of duty. His son would want to grow up and become like him. On the other hand, if you are a non-violent person like Gandhi and all you did was stood in front of the police station and tried to smoke some marijuana, first of all no officer would shoot you, but if some officer DOES shoot you, he ends up taking this huge guilt over his conscience whether he really stands for a right thing or not, similarly his family will see him as a murderer and not a brave police officer who shot a pacifist marijuana drug user. Even if nobody understands what you really stand for, the first question a cop’s wife would ask, ‘what wrong thing was that guy doing?’, ‘Was he selling marijuana?’, ‘Was he making profit by selling drugs?’, ‘Was he threatening your life in any way?’, and they see what really happened, nobody would really respect that cop in long term.

You will realize that Gandhi was a libertarian(there are many other libertarian things about Gandhi, but he wasn’t a statist), who mastered the art of fighting the aggressor with convoluted morals. We the contemporary libertarians have managed to figure out that the State is the aggressor, but what we have not managed to figure out is how to fight this aggressor. Everything Gandhi did, was against state. Every Gandhian principle becomes libertarian if you consider it a libertarian principle applicable against an aggressor with twisted right and wrong.

Gandhi said “If someone slaps you, don’t slap him back, but turn the other cheek around”.  Imagine it to be like this, “if a cop slaps you, don’t slap him back, but turn your other cheek around”.
Gandhi said “Hate the Sin, Love the Sinner”, imagine it to be like “Hate the State, Love the Statists or people who form the State”.

When I first started understanding these things, there were many things which did not make any sense, but over the time it all made sense. For example, there is a common objection that Gandhi was anti-technology and materialism, the truth is, Gandhi held those positions because these rules were only applicable to soldier against aggression. The state relies on punishing you by throwing you in a prison and devoiding you of all materials, if you devoid yourself of those materials, the state has left with no recourse to punish you in any way other than to come out of the cloak of morality and openly aggress against you(and like the cop who shot a peaceful marijuana protester in front of the police station) and lose all the morality and respect it claims, or to just let you go(like the British did) and let you build more people against the system.

Contrary to what you many people think, Gandhi only ran his non-cooperation movement for less than 2 years(out of his 30+ years of Satyagraha), he ended the movement in the middle long before he achieved his goals because a bunch of protesters in a small town in India, burnt a police station and many cops in it³. By cancelling the non-cooperation movement he became immensely unpopular among the extremist revolutionaries because right when the movement was going so strong Gandhi ended it. When this incident was portrayed in a Bollywood movie, this caused people watching this movie to chant anti-Gandhi slogans at the end of it. It didn’t make any sense to me, but now it does. What Gandhi did was, he took away any, and by that I mean ANY accusation British could bring upon Gandhian followers as being violent people.  If Gandhi had allowed the movement to continue and allowed more incidences of violence to go on, then that would have made the British government a good incentive to violently deal with all the people taking part in the non-cooperation movement. The wikipedia page of Chauri Chaura says “Many modern historians view the Chauri Chaura incident as a minor episode of violence, which while regrettable, did not merit the cancellation of a nation’s demand for political freedom.”, its a sad thing that most modern historians do not understand the core reason behind the philosophy of non-violence.

Gandhian philosophy of non-violence is not for weak people, but surprisingly this is a common viewpoint that Gandhian philosophy worked because it gave weak people a weapon to fight with, it is not true. Gandhian philosophy of non-violence and Satyagraha isn’t a weapon for weak people, its a weapon by which strong people eliminate the legitimacy of a powerful aggressor.

Ahimsa is the highest ideal. It is meant for the brave, never for the cowardly. – Mahatma Gandhi

1. Gandhi said that if someone slaps you on one cheek, turn your other cheek around and make your enemy realize how he is doing the wrong thing. [↩]
2. It was in 26 Jan 1930 when in Indian National Congress and Nationalists resolved that they will achieve a complete independent rule in India. Purna Swaraj declaration. Until then most of the political parties favored a dominion status for India, like South Africa, Australia, Canada, Irish Free State, New Zealand etc [↩]
3. Chauri-Chaura, Bihar [↩]

I have always been empathetic to the cause of the poor, and had a special liking for charity. A huge influence in this regard comes from within my family and other close quarters. It wasn’t too long before I got enmeshed into the popular trap of associating charity with socialism, and ‘exploitation’ with the free market; goodness with the working class, and evil with the rich. Much of this distorted view of reality could be associated with interpreting economic issues based on what, taking some help from Bastiat, is seen prima facie and missing out on what goes unseen.

It all started sometime in 2006 during my high school days. I had opted for science stream, only to find out that I had made yet another bad choice in my career. My academic graph was plunging quite rapidly, while my affair with political and economic systems, which sprouted when I was in middle school, grew manifold. Meanwhile I persuaded my dad to get me internet at home, and well, I tried out different things online before making it into orkut(the craze then was multifold when everybody had open scrapbooks, zero privacy. Those were great days, duh!). Like few other teenagers, I was a member of the bandwagon of nationalistic fervor and pride, wanting a violent revolution to weed out ‘evil’ capitalists who were, I believed, the reason for all our economic and social problems. Adolf Hitler was so attractive a figure to me, only to be taken over shortly by my romance(which still persists in a somewhat diminished flavor though) for Russia and the “Iron man” Stalin.

During one such endeavors to pick up some fight over orkut, I happened to step into the scrapbook of RFL’s one of the writer. If I’m right, I begun the conversation with him by pasting some old Russian joke(which I don’t remember anymore) deriding Capitalism. Notably he was the first person who took real interest, while others responded to derision with hard words I wanted, in pointing out to the flaws in my thinking process, and my misplaced priorities (Perhaps it’s not really a bad idea, I think now, to take interest in rehabilitating numbskulls on networking sites who are taken over by emotions featuring real world economic problems? After all I was one such…). Our discussions(I like euphemisms) lead us into starting a community on orkut(which now has hundreds of dead members but which still the best place to educate yourself on the subject).

The virtual community was the best thing could have happened to me at that point of time. It served as a graveyard for all my misconceptions about the market. It was a truly nice experience, where I was exposed to the works of Austrian economists, which I nevertheless ignored for more than a year. I knew I had to read them at least to know what the people at the other end were saying. I couldn’t be dishonest.

One of the other important things that happened at the community was the contacts I got with many socialists, who were radicals(except a very few may be). It was spine-thrilling to be a part of a virtual Red army on a battle against the capitalist ‘exploiters’. But things weren’t quite smooth inside the camp. My personal interactions with these socialists gave me an idea of their cause. But I found out that I wasn’t in complete agreement with what they purported. They were more concerned with economic inequality than in the welfare of the poor. ‘Equality’ was their cause, welfare for the poor was to be paid lip service alone. While I had some inclination to gather some logical defense which I could use in support of socialism, I could sense something. Socialism(and most importantly Marxism) doesn’t have any solid logical backing. Marxism is dogma, a pile of completely wrong propositions. Jargon is the best veil Marxist ‘intellectuals’ use to feign their errors. The most outright questions would give me unconvincing answers.

Getting to know the stupidity, and hypocrisy of socialists was never going to change me, for I was sure to stick on to socialism if I could find a logical basis in which I could defend socialism as the system that works for the interests of the majority. But things definitely started to drift. I had to read what my opponents really said. I made repeated attempts to go through previous discussions, many of which I didn’t understand. This was when I was in college. I was least interested in the course I had opted for a course(from which I eventually dropped out), and all that I did in the latter part of the year was to bunk classes and start reading my first economics textbook(which wasn’t actually Austrian). But it got me thinking. My mind gained clarity on how the market works, and why it works to the best interests of the workers.

There was no looking back. I could see that my socialist comrades were wrong many times. I would point them their errors, but they’d be least bothered to think on an unbiased plank. I got branded as a deserter when I decided to count my days in the Left. The recent year has been a very fruitful phase in my intellectual development. My episode must help drive home the point on what actually can change a emotionally handicapped person into a person who can find the right ways to the goal, which is the welfare of the collective(Yeah, and I am indeed aware RFL’s core philosophy). Noble intentions alone do not suffice to provide the desired results. I have no doubt now that the interests of the masses can be served only by the free market. Any other solution proposed is pure hogwash to divert attention.

While socialists would call for the abolition of market anarchy, Austrians would tell me the efficiency of the ‘invisible hand’. While socialism would demonize profits as ‘exploited surplus labor’, Austrian economics would teach me that labor without present goods through capitalist savings would lead us nowhere. While socialism would characterize the stock market as a casino, Austrians would teach me the resource allocative function of the stock markets. While speculation would be derided by socialists as greed, Austrians showed me how speculators shielded the poor from price shocks. While socialists called for a society of abundance, Austrians recognized the importance of calculation under scarcity. While mainstream economists would term interest as usury, Austrian greats would point towards the importance of time as an economic factor. I could just go on!

The only way to diagnose the real economic disease is to learn the science of cure. The cure is here, and it’s definitely Austrian economics—the only easy and fun-filled way to see beyond what’s seen prima facie and explain that what’s unseen.

Meaning of Life

What is the difference between a dead or unconscious body and a living man?
One may say, it is the conscious, and that would mean that consciousness is life.
To be conscious means to be aware, so awareness or consciousness of what makes a man living? Consciousness of his needs to maintain and further his life and the consciousness to find out the ways to fulfil his needs actually makes a man living. That is, life is consciousness of needs, or desires.
Now the needs of a man or his desires are infinite. Man desires this, that, and something else again, also life is such a weave that to attain a desire and save it, he has to sacrifice some other of his desire. You can not eat your cake and have it too. If you desire for a house, you will have to pay the price for it, your desire to have a plenty of floatable cash will be sacrificed. You can eat a cake after paying say Rs10 for it; you sacrifice the desire to keep those Rs10 in your pocket.

Intellect

So what is that, which helps a man to decide which of his desires is to be sacrificed and which desire he should fulfil? One may say his intellect helps him decide which desire is more important, so does the intellect of a man masters his life.
Intellect of a man is his tool to estimate and understand the relative importance of various desires of his present and the future. As intellect is his only tool, it cannot be his master, rather it is his slave on whose loyalty, the success of his life resides. How his intellect does helps him find which desire is more urgent and needs his attention more and which desire he may sacrifice?
He uses his intellect to be aware or conscious of the varying degrees of urgencies of his desires. If a man does not have desires, he cannot have intellect too, because he will not have any need or purpose of intellect, even if he has some intellect he will never improve it nor will use it. He thinks to solve problems he faces in fulfilling his desires, if he has no desire, he has no problem and hence he does not need to think.

Throughout his life, he remains enmeshed between the struggles of various desires, and he tilts towards that desire which is most necessary. Like, a child may desire to play cricket today, while he has to face his mid-term exams next morning, as he wishes to gain good marks in exam, he may decide to abort the plan of playing cricket this evening. An elderly man wishes to buy a luxury car, so he decide to sacrifice some of his spending on some other of his desires to save money to acquire a car, a son wishes to buy a house, but he sacrifices his desire to own a house to save money for the desire to provide cure to his sick mother and so on. Ultimately, consciousness of desires is life, intellect is the tool of life and Desires themselves are the actual master of the man’s life.

“I“

Now one may say, desires are not the master; rather he himself is the master, or the master is I or me, or myself. How can one define “I”? What is “I”?
“I” actually represents totality; it represents a person’s body, intellect, mind, memory, imaginations and his desires in total at a given moment as a single unit. Without his body, he cannot define “I” he cannot remove his mind while defining “I” too and so on. When one say, “I” am running, he mean that his legs are running, carrying the rest of his body, his brain, intellect and memory with them, when he says, “I” am thinking, he means his intellect is thinking, his eyes are not thinking, his ears doesn’t think and so on. Similarly, when one say, “I” decide to do this now, what he means to say is, the urgency of that desire to be fulfilled is maximum at that moment relating to other of his desires. He decided that by experiencing the varying intensities of the desires he is aware of, his desires rules his decision, he uses his intellect as a tool to understand the order of the desires and then he acts in accordance with his desires to fulfil them. So, saying “I” rule myself is equivalent to saying his desires masters him.
Desires can be good, can be bad, a man can have desire to help others, a man can have desire for welfare of his family, or his locality, or his city, his country or whole mankind, he can have desire for love, prestige and self-respect, in all cases, it is his own desire to achieve which, he uses his intellect, thinks and acts, and hence in any case, he depends on his self, his desires, he remains selfish, his own desire becomes his motivating force.

Will and Will Power

Sometimes, people create a mystical illusion of spirituality by stating that to overcome your desires is the way for emancipation, or freedom. They further suggest that one may overcome his desires by the virtue of his “will” or “will-power”.
So what is will or will-power?
Actually, “will” is the synonym of the desires itself. What people ignore is the fact that to overcome one’s desires itself is a basic desire of his and that is his will.
What is the difference between an animal and a rational being? All animals follow their impulses, so do the rational being, yet there is a difference. An animal does not have the rational ability to be conscious of the varying degrees of his desires, he lacks the tool to signify the various desires and dignify the most important or rational one. On the other hand, a rational being have that tool to perfect his sense or conscious of the varying degrees of his impulses or desires. A savage is slave to his immediate impulses, he will not save for old age, and he will not think for better life (or improved conscious of desires and varying degrees), he has no tool to do so. While a rational being has that tool, so he thinks and relates, he experiences which desire is most important, or rational, and properly makes a plan to achieve it.
What happens when the intellect of a man fails to signify the rational degrees of his desires? In such situations, he often commits mistakes of varying degrees, and is vulnerable to undesired complications, because he has to pay the price of each of his desire. His life becomes a chaos.
Nearly all of his desires follows the same trend, he has to pay for a desire by sacrificing some of his other desires. For his desire of emancipation, heaven, spiritual pleasure, knowing the omnipotent etc, he sacrifices his other materialistic desires. That is, will, or will power indicates the exact desire, which that particular man has decided to be strongest for himself at a given moment with the help of his intellect, hence, will is synonymous of desire, and will-power is synonymous of the power of the desire, which masters the man at that moment.

Freedom

So if the desires inevitably master a man, what is the freedom¹ ?
Freedom (self-governance) signifies no restriction on the man to use his tool, his intellect to decide what desires he need to fulfil. Freedom is his natural right and necessity to lead a better life. His freedom is to be lead by his desires with the help of his own conscious (intellect) freely. It is his natural right because naturally, he has to pay for every of his desire to fulfil. Therefore, if he commits a wrong or irrational, he certainly pays for it, if instead of saving his desire of peace, security and honour, he let the irrational desire to rule him, he commits the crime and he pays for it, by loosing the social security, his rights, his freedom and so on. Without freedom, he cannot use his intellect properly, and that would restrict his progress, and reduce his thinking capability, his evolution and hence, freedom is his most urgent desire.
Conclusion: Man is essentially a set of desires, his life is his consciousness of the varying degrees of his desires, his intellect is the only tool he possess, to distinguish the rationality of varying desires and chose the appropriate action, his will, or will-power is the exact desire he feels to be fulfilled at any particular moment, and his freedom is his most urgent desire. Overall, its nothing, but only desires, and no one can be free of desires, as to be free of desires itself is a desire. On the other hand, a dead or unconscious body certainly have no desire or consciousness of desires. More complicated the sets of desires a man feels, more improved he becomes, his conscious evolves, his intellect sharpens and this is evolution² of desires.

1. Meaning of Freedom, ReasonForLiberty [↩]
2. Moral Degradation of Modern Society or Moral Evolution, ReasonForLiberty [↩]

Decades ago, our forefathers fought for their and our freedom against the odds of kingdoms, feudalism and the foreign rulers. They fought on the premise of the rights of man as they said, “Self-governance is an individual’s birthright” and expressed the concept of self-governance as the inalienable right of an individual to his life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. In those days people knew the essence of liberty and self-governance, not only those who expressed them but also those who heard, appreciated, accepted and subscribed to the words of liberty and self-governance knew what those words meant. They knew the essence of freedom is “life free and secure from coercion and tyranny, in which all individuals would have the liberty to pursue happiness”.
They were clear about the word “pursue”, they did not mean just to trail happiness but to work for it and earn it, they knew that happiness is not just pleasure and idleness but it is peace, dignity, independence and self-respect. They knew that if self-governance is a birthright, then self-dependence is the responsibility, they knew the importance of self and thus the fight for freedom was the most virtuous, holy, selfish and clear concept for them. They understood that individual’s inalienable right is the peace and freedom in which, by his own efforts and hard-work, he could gain dignity and self-dependence owing nothing to any person and hence be liable for self-governance.
Freedom means the absence of the initiation of physical force or absence of any form of coercion. Physical force means damaging, injuring or otherwise physically doing something to or with the person or the property of the person against his will, or a threat of doing any of these things.
When one has freedom, it means that he is free of or free from the initiation of physical force by other people in any form including the form of majority rule or government, as for example, an individual is free when he is free from threat of being murdered, robbed, beaten, assaulted, kidnapped, imprisoned or defrauded. Fraud essentially represents a kind of theft because it means taking away property against the owners will. As for example, if a realty dealer sells you a piece of land, which someone else owns without his will and takes money for it, he is guilty of force, as he took money from you for something he does not own and hence cannot give or sell you.
The idea of freedom is based upon the shear fact that independent people living on the principles of rational self-interest (i.e. selfishness) leads to a harmonious progressive system where one man’s gain is definitely not the other man’s loss, rather it is the basis of the gain of other men. The free society represents a system not as an entity over and above the individual, to which he “must” sacrifice his self-interest, but an indispensable means within which an individual can fulfill the ultimate ends of his own life and happiness. The concept is based on the principle of “man is an end in himself”, that the individual and his freedom is the superior entity than the system itself. Individual rights, the right of an individual to his life and property to pursue his happiness represents his freedom. Individual rights guarantees that an individual won’t be restricted by any physical means to pursue his living and happiness, that he is free to work and earn and use his full earnings in whatever way he likes and that he owes nothing to anybody and nobody owes anything to him. Such a system favors the mutual agreement for various dealings worthy for better living providing maximum possible space for pursuing self-interest and happiness for which the individual work, toils, innovates, and enterprises.

The system of such society, where the man is free to govern himself cannot interfere in the life and realms of neither an individual’s life nor it can dictate the rule and terms for the possible mutual agreements and dealings. Such a system represents a free market society where each and every man is free to govern himself and is free to use all his potential and talent to live, work hard and earn and pursue his happiness.
It should be clear that freedom strictly means economic freedom along with political and religious freedom, because without economic freedom, freedom neither can be defined nor it can be explained. Thus, in a free society that provides sovereignty for every individual and a harmonious atmosphere for having mutually beneficial contracts, any individual or a group of individuals representing the government will not have any sort of interference in the economic sector, that is, the government will not interfere in education, agriculture, health-care, public services, industries and other productive activities, the government will not control the money supply and create the business cycles of booms and busts. Government would not enforce quotas and reservations, provide taxes and subsidies, rather it would be left free for the market ruled by the individuals and their mutually beneficial agreements because that is their right, right to govern themselves and decide for themselves freely.

In true sense, in a society that promises complete sovereignty for the individuals to self-govern, there would hardly be any need of government, as the individuals would be governing themselves, they would be free and responsible enough to look for their individual and mutual self-interests.
The right to self-govern, the right to be free doesn’t mean that there would be a superior entity in form of government providing free education, free health-care, free food for everyone, that would not be freedom, rather it would be slavery.
The right to self-govern strictly means the right to be responsible, responsible for one’s own life, progress and happiness, owing nothing for anybody else.
A free man cannot demand quotas and reservations or subsidies; a free man would not pay any price too for his living and pursuing his honest life. A free man on the other hand would be vigilant, honest and hardworking enough to earn his own rightful living, his own health-care plans, he will decide what to learn and how, what to grow and produce and he will have the right to decide to sell his products or services to others and get the mutually agreed prices. He will have full freedom to work and make his fortunes for which he would not need any license. In a free society, all individuals will have equal freedom to use their talent, mental caliber, physical capacities to make wealth, but the results of their endeavors will depend on their caliber and standard of their efforts. A free society cannot be the society of equals; rather it would be rationally based on the division of labor, that is, the system in which the individuals lives by producing, or helping to produce, just one thing or at the most a very few things, and is supplied by the labor of others for the far greater part of his needs for which he pays rightfully. The prices of the goods he produce and the goods he needs to fulfill his needs will depend on the marginal utility of the goods.

Such a society would be free from the “irrational self-interest” as it would be thoroughly dependent on the rational sense of self-interest with complete freedom for all individuals to pursue their “rational self-interests” freely that is their won’t be any governmental interference in the market to provide special privileges, quotas, reservations based on religion, caste or sex, there won’t be any government subsidies, price supports, tariffs, licensing laws, exclusive government franchises, labor-union privileges, immigration quotas and the like.
Freedom is a natural right, as the responsibility to be self-dependent is natural. Self-dependence means one will not be demanding anything from anyone else or even the government, rather he would be working to earn for it and as he would earn it, it would be his right to enjoy his earning.

Licensing system, state governed education system, state governed currency system and state backed paper-currency, reservation and quota policies, health-care policies, subsidies, price-control, tariffs and like all comes as the physical force against the individual as all such acts are strictly the acts of fraud. In a free system, an individual would have complete security from such governmental frauds.
In the current system, the representatives of the majority decides for the individual, and individual remains a slave for the majority law, paying for it and obeying it, this is not freedom.
We, the children of our ancestors who fought for the independence considering the right to self-govern as every individual’s birthright, actually have forgotten the real sense of freedom that is why we consider ourselves free and accepts the current form of government to rule over us. We never got that right to rule ourselves to decide for our own hard-work and its consequences, rather our ruler and the system of ruling changed and we remained under the slavery of government, interfering in the market and our lives as it wished. We did get the right to choose our ruler to govern us as in form of democracy and political freedom, but we never got the right to govern ourselves, that is, we never got the freedom for which our ancestors were fighting.
It is the time for us to be responsible, to assert that we as individuals are capable of responsibility and freedom, of fidelity and endurance and courage, that we not only can distinguish good and evil but we can individually choose good from evil as it would necessarily be in our interest, that we strictly do not need government to rule us, to tell us what we are capable of and what we are not. It is the time for us to resist the control of government over the individual and call for the sovereignty of the individual and his inalienable natural right to govern himself to pursue his self-interest and happiness.