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

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

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.

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

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.

“Taxation should not be a painful process for the people. There should be leniency and caution while deciding the tax structure. Ideally, governments should collect taxes like a honeybee, which sucks just the right amount of honey from the flower so that both can survive. Taxes should be collected in small and not in large proportions”.

Chanakya was a firm believer of self-sustenance and individual rights and the virtue of selfishness.
In Garuda Purana, Chanakya signifies the importance of money and the value money inherits—

1.7: Put aside some wealth in case of future difficulties. Never ask, “Why should a rich man dread hard times?” If Lakshmi, the Goddess of Fortune, decides to go elsewhere, even your savings will dwindle. Chanakya, Garuda Purana

Later on he says about wealth and richness –

5.20. Wealth, which represents Her in this world, never stops moving from one hand to the next. Whenever a clever man becomes rich, others lay schemes for plunder—banks through exorbitant interest rates, governments through constant and excessive taxation, thieves through extortion and common citizens through lawsuits—all conspire to reduce a rich man’s accumulated wealth to zero. Chanakya, Garuda Purana.

It is observable, that with the stability in political culture, Maurya Empire brought-forth a need for Individual liberty and economic freedom too. Yet, the era was feudalistic and Chandra Gupta Maurya established the empire by dethroning and killing Nand Vansh.
The blood-shedding of feudal structure kept Indian plains blood red and Ashoka, the greatest of Indian Emperors followed the same gory culture and killed his own brothers to gain the empire. Yet, historical evidences interprets that Ashoka was the most successful, benevolent and popular emperor.
The kingdom and serfdom continued to rule the Indian sub-continent, struggling within them-selves, involving in bloody wars and fights, and as the organized culture of unity deteriorated, Indian sub-continent again faced foreign invaders in form of Ghauris, Qutubs, and Mughals.
Babar established the Mughal Empire, and Akbar, the grandson of Babar, proved himself as the most significant ruler of Mughal Empire. He again unified India and brought about some major socio-political and religious changes. Yet, because of the similar drawbacks of feudal system and inter-contradictions and fractions, Mughal Empire lost its control and British Empire took hold of India. Indian public was used to the imperialism and serfdom, yet the kings and rulers of India revolted against the British rule, and the first Independence struggle was staged in 1857. The basic change that struggle brought forth was the sense of common citizen of India, to be a vibrant and important part of India. After 100′s of years, the society was now taking a unified facet with a charm of equal responsibility. Yet, this dream of liberty was only against the foreign rulers. In 1857, the common citizenry was still ready to accept the national kingdom of Mughals or some Indian Kingdom again.
Yet the times were changing and it took a little time from a drastic change in socio-political culture of India from that point of time of 1857. Indians rouse against any sort of rulers and kingdom. Obviously, the intellectual touching from foreign world and Indian intellectuals drive towards the reasonability of individual freedom and the democracy strengthened in India. With the establishment of Indian National Congress under the headship of Indian Industrialist Dadabhai Naoroji and veteran leaders like Gangadhar Tilak, feudalism was destined to end in India.
Yet, on the name of Liberty, the national leaders were seeking for political liberty of Indians, and in 1947, Indians did achieved the political freedom with establishment of democratic India. Democracy provided a certain degree of freedom but the battle didn’t ended there. Democracy, being the rule of majority over minority, providing ruling powers to certain class of rulers belonging to politicians, never let the Indians to strive and aspire for Individual freedom. The Organized culture continued to defeat the Individual strides and demeaning the individual culture as “Unsophisticated”. Yet, the aspirations are meant to defeat the outdated values.
Until 1991, Indian government kept a closed organized culture of socialism, unjustified egalitarianism, and governmental indoctrinations. The economic meltdown of 1992 brought forth a further economic-socio-political change and India opted for liberalization of economy. The flux is under constant change, and it is not very far in future when Indian society will start emphasizing the Individual Culture, the culture of freedom, liberty and individual rights over the organized culture. It is a positive evolution, a story of evolving changes in the society merging from socio-political clutches of serfdom to the individualistic aspirations of freedom, self-reliance and Individual rights based on economic freedom as enshrined property rights and culture of Individual voluntarism.

“No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave. He, who has nothing, and who himself belongs to another, must be defended by him, whose property he is, and needs no arms. But he, who thinks he is his own master, and has what he can call his own, ought to have arms to defend himself, and what he possesses; else he lives precariously, and at discretion.” –James Burgh (Political Disquisitions: Or, an Enquiry into Public Errors, Defects, and Abuses) [1774-1775]

Although Indians always respected the ideals of Ahimsa, and regarded Gandhi as the Mahatma, but what were Gandhi’s own views about the Gun-Control?
Gandhi criticized the Gun-Control law vehemently and said—

“Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest.” — Mahatma Gandhi (An Autobiography OR The story of my experiments with truth, by M.K. Gandhi, p.238)

British had a reason to oppose freedom of Indians to own a gun, an instrument for self-defense, but after the Independence, it was well-sought by the Indians that such ridiculous and anti-freedom act will be removed as soon as possible.
India got independence in 1947, yet it took almost 12 years to repeal the Indian-Arms-Act. In 1959, free Indian government denounced the Indian Arms Act of 1878 and enacted the Arms Act of 1959. Nevertheless, India was still struggling with the distrust of government against its own people. The Indian Government started License-Raj and the legislation gave enormous powers to the Licensing Authority to decide whether a common honest law abiding citizen can hold a gun or not.
It was the era of communistic impressions on India

“A system of licensing and registration is the perfect device to deny gun ownership to the bourgeoisie.” — Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

As all other departments, government strictly controlled the arms production and private arms manufacturing industry completely.
Obviously, it was all done to reduce the ongoing dangers of secession at Kashmir, Punjab, Assam, Mizoram and Nagaland borders, and to decrease the dangers of Naxalism.
However, during the mid 1980′s the government put an end to all small arms import because of the rising dangers of terrorism and seized the little freedom for private arms manufacturing units.
Government never considered that not a single terrorist or criminal ever used a licensed arm; still it made owning an arm legally near to impossible. Thus, the honest law abiding citizen was disarmed completely.
On the other hand, the black market of illegal arms started flourishing in every next city of India and crime kept increasing continuously.
It is a fact that licensed arms are far less dangerous than motorcycles or city buses.
It is also a fact that Gun-Control provides a certainty to the criminal that the victim, who mostly is an honest law-abiding citizen, is unarmed. The situation goes as-
Less guns, more crimes.
Most violent crimes, including the terrorist attacks and religious riots are committed using illegal arms and there is no way to trace and stop the illegal arms trade. Terrorists or underworld criminals are not going to respect gun-control laws, they seldom respects any law. They will be willing to gain any arms of their choice and will use them to commit crimes. Government always ignored the fact that in India it is much easier and cheaper to buy an illegal weapon than to own a legal weapon, and why will a criminal or terrorist try to get a legal weapon? Legal weapon are for self-defence by the law-abiding citizens only, and government makes them rare, government makes it impossible for the honest citizen to defend himself against the criminals.
Who can oppose owning a gun for self-defence? Who can oppose the right to self-defence?

“If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun.” — The Dalai Lama, (May 15, 2001, The Seattle Times)

Was it possible for the rioting mob of Aligarh and Bhopal in 1993 to kill those hundreds of innocent if they had a gun, an instrument for their self-defence? Was Godhra riot or Best Bakery massacre, or Mumbai Riots or Golden temple Massacre possible if the common law-abiding citizen had a chance to defend himself?
We say our sisters and mothers to learn martial arts to defend themselves against the rapists and women haters. How would a rapist be able to abduct a working girl while returning from her work to rape her if he knows she owns a gun for her self-defense? At present, he knows she has no way to defend herself, her cries will not be strong enough to call back some cop to defend her and he attacks the girls freely, but what if he comes to realize that she can shoot him pretty well.
When a person owns a gun, he becomes godlike with special powers to harm and attack others. When a person owns a bike, he becomes godlike to run faster than the air. Do all bike owners commits accidents and kill people on roads through rash driving? So yes, it may be a case that some people may abuse the gun-power but mostly owning a gun makes a person responsible and careful enough to use it properly. Can anyone deny that despite of all dangers of road accidents, bikes, cars, and mopeds are a necessary need and a modern power as bless of god for the common man? A legal gun will be just another power for the honest citizen against the criminals to defend self.
Arms are free for the criminals and terrorists. Crimes and riots are free for the criminals and evil doers. However, when the evil-doers and criminals know it with certainty that the honest law-abiding citizen is defenseless; they become more audacious and adamant. If the Law-Abiding citizen owns the guns, the power to defend themselves against any sort of riots or crimes, it is clear that no or very few will even think and try to create any riot on the name of religion or caste.
Some people wonder on the removal of gun-control, will the violence increase abruptly.
Guns are not necessary for killing and domestic violence is already up. Nevertheless, if the physical weakness of women against the violent male is counter equated by the ownership of gun by a woman, it will certainly reduce the chances of domestic violence.
As a matter of fact, Indian Laws or so much strict that a common citizen cannot even hold a stick, on the other hand, even the constables are now allowed to hold a gun but they are empowered with Lathis, Lathis to lathicharge the mob.
A Mob with illegal guns and grenades can not be controlled by lathis.
When the police cannot defend itself, how is it going to defend a common citizen?
The honest law-abiding citizen needs to demand for the right of self-defence, and government should help him by removing gun-control.

Turn off the path, you are free.
Face the force of free will
set it loose.
Play a new tune,
sing a new melody,
teach others to dance
Unfold your wings and fly again

Where there is no path,
leave a trail
and know that others will follow
if only the hardy few at first
Explore your fears and discover your dreams
The meek will inherit the earth,
but the brave want heaven right now
and we are prepared to come and take it.
Stop bitchin’ and start a revolution.

Read a related article “Reason for Interest”

The labor is waiting!
Take a look at a person who invests $5 million dollars in bank for 10 years, and he earns (at 6%) $300,000 per year, a salary good enough for a 5 years exp project manager in America. You might say, that man is not working at all, and he is living off the interest. This is no labor, but here is the thing, he is deferring his enjoyment of those $5 million dollars. He is surely getting $300,000 every year, which is a quite a large sum of money and he is surely enjoying that too, but if he uses that $5 million dollars he can do a zillion things, he can buy a big house, a big yacht, a helicopter and scores of other things. BUT he is not able to do all those thing, for next 10 years. He is simply waiting, the 5 million dollars are right now being used by someone who needs it, and using it to make more money.
He is doing the labor of waiting.

Now you may say waiting is not labor. Well lets say a girl told you that she will meet you on the bus stop, and you forgot to ask her what time, so you decide that you will stay there for the whole day on the bus stop waiting for her. But instead you ask a jobless guy standing on the bus stop wanting to go to his home. Well he would be doing your part of labor if he waits for say till 6PM from 6AM in the morning. He had to go to his home, but can’t till the wait is completed. You are not only giving him compensation for deferring his departure to his home, you are paying him for his labor of waiting.

Lemme bring common story flowed across among socialists which has a big fallacy.
The story goes like this. OF course some agitated communist wrote it to me, but I couldn’t really get the actual text of story, I am sure you might have read it.

A Capitalist owns a pair of Nike shoes. He is a fat dumbass lazy bastard. So he decides to find someone whom he can exploit with the Nike shoes. There’s a 100 metres running race happening at a place. He finds a well built talented guy who can run very well but does not have a pair of shoes. This lazy bastard decides to hire the young guy and makes him run the race with the nike shoes. The young guy wins the race and gets a hot cash prize of 10,000 bucks. The capitalist immediately takes away the 10,000 rupees from the young guy and gives him just 100 bucks. And when we Communists ask the lazy capitalist bastard “why are you getting the money while the young guy ran and won the race?” And the capitalist bastard comes up with useless senseless answers which you would be knowing or comes up with ant grasshopper story.

Can the readers see the fallacy in this story?
The fallacy in the story is that it ignores the labor of the Capitalist in the athlete winning the race. It presumes that somehow its the duty of the Capitalist to provide the athlete with shoes.
Lets presume Capitalist himself is a hard working runner, and with proper training he can also win the race. But his problem is the same as the athlete, he does not have the shoes to run for the race. So both the capitalist and the athlete decide that the capitalist is going to use his time and resources to make the shoes for the athlete who will train himself and then run in the race, and once he wins the race they both are going to share the prize money.
My question is, do you now see the labor of the Capitalist? The capitalist didn’t run in the race, but he could have, in face he contributed in the athlete’s victory, by spending his time in doing something in which he is more proficient at, i.e. making shoes.

Lets see another scenario, lets say a trainer trains an athlete for a race. Trainer demands 50% of the prize money once athlete wins the race. Do you think the demand of the trainer is justified? If yes then the capitalist who provides shoes to the athlete is also justified in his demand. Its because of HIS shoes which enables athlete to win such a race, its because of HIS labor in the shoes that now athlete can win this race. There is no exploitation as long as athlete is free to reject the deal.

Now about the issue of Capitalist leaving only Rs 100 for the athlete and taking Rs 10,000/- with him, then we will have to look at some auxiliary conclusion we can derive from the example. First of all, the athlete and capitalist both must have agreed upon the prize money distribution, and if the athlete agreed upon such a deal it simply means that the marginal utility of Athlete’s labor was very little to the Capitalist and he could have gone to any other athlete and given him the shoes and have him win. If the athlete was irreplaceable, and still the capitalist insisted on such a deal, then the athlete could have gone to some other capitalist who would supply him with shoes and give him a better deal. Since the athlete did not go to any other capitalist that means there were no other capitalists available to supply him with shoes and since the deal really took place means Capitalist was in the position to replace the athlete with any other person.

So this means that irrespective of the fact that it was athlete who ran, without the Capitalist’s labor he couldn’t have won the race. Any other participant could have won the race using his shoes. That simply means that it was a win-win situation for both of them. The capitalist was irreplaceable to the athlete, and the athlete was easily replaceable to the capitalist. Therefore this 1:100 distribution of the prize money is perfectly justifiable.

]]> http://www.reasonforliberty.com/anarcho-capitalism/labor-behind-rent-and-interest.html/feed 5 http://www.reasonforliberty.com/education/maria-montessori-star-on-earth.html http://www.reasonforliberty.com/education/maria-montessori-star-on-earth.html#comments Mon, 16 Jun 2008 11:07:41 +0000 Unpretentious Diva http://www.reasonforliberty.com/?p=351 Born August 31, 1870, Maria Montessori was destined to become an incredible woman. Born into a privileged household she was able to do things no other woman in her time was able. Her education was at an all-boys school, she was the only girl there in attendance. Even her higher education was groundbreaking. She became the first woman to graduate with a medical degree from the University of Rome La Sapienza.
After her graduation Maria became intrigued with trying to educate the ‘mentally retarded’ or the so-called uneducable in Rome. She developed her own method, later known as the Montessori Method, in an effort to try to teach these students. In 1898 she gave a lecture on her teachings and her findings at the Educational Congress in Torino, Italy.
The Educational Minister of Education became very impressed by her methods and her arguments that he appointed her the Director of the Sculoa Ortofenica. Sculoa was an institute devoted to the care and the education of the mentally handicapped. A few of her 8 year old students at the institute applied for the State examinations of reading and writing, and all passed with above average scores. This achievement was later called the “First Montessori Miracle.”
In 1904 she became a professor of anthropology at the University of Rome. Maria held the chair for only three years before she resigned it. She instead chose to focus her time on the education of children and in 1907 she founded the “Casa de Bambini” or Children’s House. This child care center was made in a poor neighbourhood in Rome and it instituted and technique Maria called ‘spontaneous self development.’ [1]
The purpose of the Montessori methods was to allow children to set their own pace of learning. Maria believed that children develop differently from adults and under that belief she thought that with the proper help in developing that these children would one day advocate world peace.
Twice Maria was invited to the USA. The first time was in 1913 when she gave a speech at Carnegie Hall. That same year Alexander Graham Bell and his wife formed the Montessori Educational Association out of their own home in Washington, DC. In 1915 Maria was given a chance to demonstrate her methods. A classroom with glass walls was built and people were allowed to observe as children learned and excelled under the Montessori Method.
Her principles were so strong that she was even able to stand up against dictators. And that was precisely what she did in 1934 when she stood up against Benito Mussolini. She refused to allow her students to become soldiers and in her defiance she was exiled from Italy.
She then went to Spain but could only stay there until 1936 when the Spanish Civil War broke out. From Spain she went to the Netherlands and remained there until she received an invitation to visit India from the Theosophical Society of India. In 1939 Maria took her son Mario and moved to India, making Chennai her home. Due to the outbreak of WW2 Maria was forced to stay in India for 10 years.
She did not waste the time though. Maria stood bravely as she tried to institute her teachings in a country where the voice and words of women were usually ignored in the public eye. She spent the time in India conducting training courses, 16 batches of them, called the Indian Montessori Training Methods. By the time she left India in 1949 her teachings were on sound footing and spreading throughout India, and even Pakistan, where she did a few training courses as well. Her work in India was continued by Max Joosten and Swamy S. R.
Maria died on May 6, 1952, the same year she received her third Nobel Peace Prize nomination. The other two nominations were in 1949 and 1951. Unfortunately she never won the prize. Though if she had won it, it would only have been a small accomplishment compared to the barricades she had faced in her life with great bravery.
“My vision of the future is no longer people taking exams and proceeding then on that certification …. but of individuals passing from one stage of independence to a higher [one], by means of their own activity through their own effort of will, which constitutes the inner evolution of the individual.” Maria Montessori. From Childhood to Adolescence. [5]
In the Montessori Method of education common practices, such as grading system and exams, are not utilized because it is detrimental to the growth and developmental of the children. Instead the teachers observe the children and write down areas where they need improvement and help the child overcome their difficulties.
The entire method of education is focused on the needs of the child, and to help them develop into fully functioning adults. It is based on the belief that child have their own will to learn, that the children want to master any kind of challenges that are put before them. Children learn at a very early state that someone is concentrating and not to bother that person.
“And so we discovered that education is not something which the teacher does, but that it is a natural process which develops spontaneously in the human being.” Maria Montessori [6]
What supports Maria Montessori’s idea about educating mentally retarded or so-called uneducable students is the fact that various famous and successful personalities, like Albert Einstein, Leonardo Da Vinci, Walt Disney, Agastha Christie, Thomas Edison, Pablo Picasso, and bollywood actor Abhishek Bachchan were considered dyslexic.
Recently, Indian actor turned director Amir Khan made a commercial movie “Taare Zameen Par” based on issue of education of children, the idea of which was based on Montessori Philosophy of schooling. [7]

References:
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria_Montessori
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montessori
3. http://www.michaelolaf.net/
4. http://www.montessori.edu/index.html
5. http://www.montessori-namta.org/NAMTA/index.html
6. http://thinkexist.com/quotes/maria_montessori/
7. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taare_Zameen_Par

]]> http://www.reasonforliberty.com/education/maria-montessori-star-on-earth.html/feed 3 http://www.reasonforliberty.com/atheism/dowry-the-other-facet.html http://www.reasonforliberty.com/atheism/dowry-the-other-facet.html#comments Sun, 08 Jun 2008 14:21:00 +0000 Unpretentious Diva http://www.reasonforliberty.com/?p=319 Talks of dowry are nothing new for Indians. No matters how much the percentage of literacy has been increased, or how much standards of living have been enhanced, such cursed cultural-religious ceremonial system of marriage remains in the realm of Indian marriages. The bride’s family pays a dowry to the groom to recognize that he will provide good life and security for his wife.
If someone personally asks to me, I have no problem regarding dowry. But I have sincere problems with marriage and society. Basically, dowry is no wrong if it is NOT taken as religious-cultural tradition, but taken as a legal contract. Breach of the contract will mean legal charges being filed against the breaker of that simple contract. For that marriage contract, the two partners, who surely can be lovers, will sit up with calmness to discuss their priorities, philosophical, political, social, individual preferences and patterns and will make a mutually beneficial marriage rules applicable for both of them equally. Obviously, that written document may or may not involve any monetary transactions, that is, dowry may or may not be a part of such free-willed marriage contract. Yet, the contract will be enforceable.
The breakage of simply defined rules for the couple by any of the party may and will lead to punishment (monetary or otherwise). It is freedom of both the girl and boys to keep up their desires regarding a happy married life and make their personal laws for the mutually beneficial relation between the two. The couple may/may not agree on varied subjects like allowance for polygamy or polyandry etc. let’s say a couple agrees for monoandrous and monogamous relation, i.e. for both the bride and groom, sex outside the marriage is unbearable. That is, two people married on mutual consent for monogamy/monoandry. After age 40, male felt he don’t want sex anymore.
Then there should be freedom for wife to take divorce and go for other man, but if the husband and wife agrees to remain in contract, and allow polyandry for wife, then there is no problem. But if wife cheats, than it is cheat and immorality, that is, polyandry/polygamy itself is not immoral, but if there is a contract for monoandry/monogamy and that contract is breached not by the mutual consent of the two parties engaged, but by cheating and fraud, then it is immoral and illegal, and that will be punished as breach of contract.
But in India, the marriage system is not contract based. And that is why dowry becomes a demon. There’s no legal responsibility of the husband to take good care of wife, while he can surely exploit the girl/wife for further demands of dowry by simply acting illegal. Anywhere and in any form, where there is no economic and social freedom for the individuals, the women suffers predominantly. The women will keep suffering the illegal and immoral acts of her dowry-demanding corrupt husband while he will keep breaking the generally presumed marriages law. Woman won’t oppose because of the fear of society, how the hell will she live if she leaves her coercive and exploiter husband? Living alone is such a curse for a woman you know, and what and how will she earn and eat? Will she again be an unwanted responsibility on her father’s/ brother’s shoulders? What will happen to her children etc, so many ill-reasons for a woman to keep suffering within the four walls of her imprisoning SASURAL! Obviously, woman will have to counter attack such societal moralities which forces her to accept the wrong and discourages her to use her individual rights. It is not like government or society hasn’t done anything for the women. There are various laws against dowry and domestic violence. But such laws are irrefutably redundant and on a reasonable basis, are wrong. They are redundant because irrespective of all such laws, the violence against women and the dowry-demands never stopped. They are unreasonable, because on legal formats, such laws create a difference between rights of men and women on gender basis, providing more and unbalanced legal powers to the women. Because of societal inequalities between the two genders, the genuinely needing women seldom (nearly never) get themselves in a position to use such laws and earn justice. While on other hand, some of the pretentious and cheater women irresponsibly use such laws to harass and exploit the male counterparts.
The ideal state would be equal and reasonable irrevocable rights and total freedom for citizens irrespective of their gender, class, creed, religion etc and non-interference of government, society, authority in individual freedom. < discussed here Liberty, Tolerance, Freedom of expression and Political Correctness!
In Ayn Rand’s words, “Evil requires the sanction of Victim!” it is the woman who can stop all the atrocities against womanhood. It is her individual strength and the inalienable rational rights which she acquires by virtue of her own rational faculty and not by the provision of any government or society which can and ultimately will prompt her to stand against any ill-defined tradition or cultural-religious based ill-practices.
A woman’s freedom is not dependent on the irrational reservation or governmental announced laws based on flawed basis. The freedom and enlightenment of womanhood is dependent only on the individual woman standing on her own against any ill any injustice of religion, society, community or state government. It is the woman alone, who can safeguard and void the evil victimizing her, and none else. And for that, obviously women will have to demand for her individual rights, she will have to stand alone. She will have to be the light!

Let us consider a just opposite situation. Let’s say it is not bride or her family who have to pay dowry, but it is the groom who has to pay dowry in order to get married to prove to the bride’s family that he will be a good provider. Will that change the situations of womanhood to any better state?
Obviously, the answer is a big NO. It won’t effect in the situation of women in the society. The example is the Thailand’s cultural/traditional system of “Sin Sod”, according to which, the male has to give dowry to prove that he can be a good provider for the bride. But, in absence of social and economical freedom, even that causes a curse to women. (Read more about Sin Sod here Thai Dowries Change with Time.
Obviously, I am not against this system too if individual rights and mutually consensual premises are enforced under free-will contract system.
Many westerners marries farm girls from NE of Thailand by paying good amount in Sin Sod, some of them even marries girls who have already worked in bars or prostitution rackets for the cause of poverty.
Mostly, girls are being sold there by their families irrespective of their consent or non-consent just for the cause of greed of money by the poor farmers. The girls may be minors too. Hence, it causes unwanted breakage of individual rights and exploitation of individuals who obviously are women, girls. Many Thai men just cannot marry because of lack of good amount for Sin Sod, again similar situations as in India. There also, the dowry system proves to be working ok at rich family cordons. But at middle class and poor class, same dowry system proves to be havoc. It simply shows that, until the woman herself won’t stand for her individual rights as an individual and not as a mere part of a family or community or sect or religion/tradition or country, she won’t get any justice, no matters what ever changes the cultural traditions may take place. There is only one way for freedom, and that way is the Individual’s will and strength to be free on the basis of reason!

http://couplewriters.blogspot.com/p/about-us.html

]]> http://www.reasonforliberty.com/atheism/dowry-the-other-facet.html/feed 12 http://www.reasonforliberty.com/current-affairs/honour-killingsthe-ultimate-price-women-pay-for-the-false-male-ego.html http://www.reasonforliberty.com/current-affairs/honour-killingsthe-ultimate-price-women-pay-for-the-false-male-ego.html#comments Sun, 08 Jun 2008 08:03:02 +0000 Shandi http://www.reasonforliberty.com/?p=314 “Honour killing is murder. This is a barbaric act.” [6]
That was said by a man by the name of Khalil Aswad. His 17 year old daughter Du’a Khalil Aswad was stoned to death in a mob of 2000+ people and some of those in the audience were police officials who did nothing. And what was her crime to deserve this animalistic treatment. She had fallen in love with a Muslim boy outside her Yazidi tribe.
Du’a was stripped to her undergarments and slowly stoned to death while onlookers cheered on the killers and recorded the actions on their cellphones. Du’a died slowly, the stoning lasted almost 30 minutes. In this horrific video Du’a is screaming and crying for help but there is none for her because in the eyes of her tribe she had dishonoured them all.
After her death she was buried with a dog to show that they thought she was worthless in their eyes. Her body was later exhumed for examination to see if she was a virgin. Even though it was proven that she was, it did nothing to redeem her in their eyes and her murderers went unprosecuted. Her family lives now as outcasts in their tribe.
“My daughter did nothing wrong,” Aswad said, “She fell in love with a Muslim and there is nothing wrong with that. I couldn’t protect her because I got threats from my brother, the whole tribe. They insisted they were gonna kill us all, not only Du’a, if she was not killed. She was mutilated, her body dumped like rubbish.” [6]
“To do this to their own flesh and blood was unforgivable. Forgiveness isn’t even a question. They don’t deserve to be on this Earth.” [10]
“How can someone think that kind of thing and actually do it to your own flesh and blood? It’s disgusting.” [11]
Bekhal Mahmod said those in an interview after the death of her sister Banaz. Banaz was raped, beaten, and then strangled to death by men hired by her father and uncle. Both her father Mahmod Mahmod , and her uncle, Ari Mahmod, were convicted of murder in the United Kingdom.
Banaz’s crime was simple. She had left an abusive arranged marriage and had fallen in love with someone her family did not approve of. Her family had even threatened to kill her boyfriend if they stayed together.
Banaz Mahmod disappeared on Jan 24, 2006 and her body was found buried in a suitcase in Handsworth, Birmingham three months later. The shoelace that had been used to strangle her was still around her neck.
Bekhal lives in hiding, afraid of her own family because she too had left an arranged marriage. Like her sister, in the eyes of her family she has caused great shame to the family. She will not even go outside unless she wears a full veil showing only her eyes. This is the price she has to pay to live.
“If I had realised then what she would become, I would have killed her the instant her mother delivered her.” [13]
Abdel-Qader Ali, 46, killed his 17 year old daughter on March 16, 2008 and those were his words. Rand Abdel-Qadar was stomped on by her father, strangled and then finally stabbed to death. Her mother, Leila Hussein, called in Rand’s brothers to try to help her but instead they joined and helped their father to kill her. Rand’s body was then throw into a unmarked grave without a ceremony as her uncles spat on it in disgust.
“I don’t have a daughter now, and I prefer to say that I never had one. That girl humiliated me in front of my family and friends. Speaking with a foreign solider, she lost what is the most precious thing for any woman. ‘People from western countries might be shocked, but our girls are not like their daughters that can sleep with any man they want and sometimes even get pregnant without marrying. Our girls should respect their religion, their family and their bodies.” [13]
“I have only two boys from now on. That girl was a mistake in my life. I know God is blessing me for what I did,’ he said, his voice swelling with pride. ‘My sons are by my side, and they were men enough to help me finish the life of someone who just brought shame to ours.” [13].
Those were his words to try to justify the horrible murder of his own daughter. And the thing that makes it worse is that he was released 2 hours after by the police. The police even congratulated him on killing her. All this because she was seen talking to a Christian British soldier in public.
Rand believed she was in love with him, and due to that she brought shame to her family’s name. Her mother watched the whole murder in horror and had the guts to leave her husband, and he beat her and broke her arm when she announced she was going.
But even Leila wasn’t able to get away. On May 17 she was gunned down just as she was about to leave to meet a person who could get her out of her country. It was an unhappy ending in this tragedy.
Honour killings are defined as generally a punitive murder, committed by members of a family against a female member of their family whom the family and/or wider community believes to have brought dishonor upon the family. [18] and more often than not a women is the victim of these honour killings. Honour killings “go across cultures and across religions.” [2]
What I have mentioned above are three examples of these killings, but there are many many more. Thousands of women are murdered each year in the name of honour for their families. The range of offensives can range from a mere allegation of infidelity, pre marital sex, flirting, or even failing to serve a meal on time. There was a case where a woman was killed by her husband because she had a dream she had betrayed him. [2]
The men who commit these murders are usually the teenage brothers of the girls because if there is legal action, they would get lighter sentences. [2] Although this is not to say that only teenage girls are the victims of these honour killings. Victims can range from pre-pubescent girls to grandmothers.
It does not matter if the women are innocent or not of the things they are accused of and killed for. The allegation alone is enough to defile a man’s honour and therefore enough to justify the killing of the women. [5] Even rape victims are often killed because they have dishonoured their families or tribes. An innocent victim of brutality at a man’s hand killed for not being able to fight back.
And are the men ever held responsible for the actions they commit. If a woman has an affair she is killed but more often than not, the man she had cheated with escape. In most countries those who commit honour killings are not punished for their acts, though now some countries such as Turkey are making honour killings illegal. Although in the wake of that there is a rise of honour suicides, when the family convinces the girl she should kill herself. [15]
People need to realize that honour killings are pathetic excuses for men to brutalize and murder women. Men are just that…men. They are not Gods and they should have no right to take the life of another person, especially a member of their own family. They may be able to get away with this in this life but they will get retribution in the next. If there is a God, there is no way he would condone the murders of innocent women.
We as a society need to move towards a change. Men and women both have the right to life and they should both have the right to live the way they want to. Men are not better than women and neither are women any better than men. We are equals and should be treated as such.
Animalistic treatment such as honour killings would not exist if people were allowed to live the way they want to. There is happiness to be found in freedom of one’s own choices and everyone should have the chance to experience that.

‘Freedom of expression for some is not enough.
We must work for freedom of expression for all.
Human rights for some is not  enough.
We must work for the human rights for all.
Peace  for some is not  enough.
We must work for peace for all.
I, come what may, will not be silenced.
Come what may, I will continue my fight for equality and justice without any compromise until my death.
Come what  may, I will never be silenced.’ “Taslima Nasreen”!
References.

1. [1]

2. [2]
3. [3]
4. [4]
5. [5]

7. [7]
8. [8]
9. [9]
10. [10]
11. [11]
12. [12]
13. [13]
14. [14]
15. [15]
16. [16]
17. [17]
18. [18]

]]> http://www.reasonforliberty.com/current-affairs/honour-killingsthe-ultimate-price-women-pay-for-the-false-male-ego.html/feed 15 http://www.reasonforliberty.com/inspiration/the-objectivistic-aryavrata.html http://www.reasonforliberty.com/inspiration/the-objectivistic-aryavrata.html#comments Wed, 28 May 2008 14:47:00 +0000 Unpretentious Diva http://www.reasonforliberty.com/?p=34

Valmiki Ramayana ended with the return of Ram-Sita to Ajodhya, Valmiki presented characters of Ram-Sita as simple human beings with uncompromising reasonable morals and there was no FIRE-TEST for Sita in Valmiki Ramayana!

Many people say that Ramayana is a story of compassion and selflessness, but a stern look will remove these misconceptions. Ramayana was strictly an objectivistic tale based on reasons and uncompromising morals like a democratic society, capitalistic free-trade civilization and virtue of selfishness.
King Dashrath and Kaikeyye were ruling the democratic state of Aryavrata when a dictatorial unprincipled attacker Ravana crossed the borders and forced the civilians of Aryavrata to succumb against his force and violence. Aryavrata was a land of voluntary army and taxation. Therefore, the army of Ajodhya under the command of Dashrath and Kaikeyye tried to safeguard the civilians and researchers of Aryavrata by following the Objectivistic ethics of government to provide security for the individuals of the society against any physical force. However, Ravana defeated the army of Dashrath and forced a system tax against Aryavrata to avoid further violence.
Then Dashrath had four sons whom Kaikeyye nurtured freely and took care of them perfectly while her Objectivistic aim to provide security to the public of her nation and create a free society again was always in her mind.
She never instigated violence in any of her son, yet she understood it right from the childhood that Ram the eldest was most efficient and able person amongst the four.
After their formal education under Rishi Vashishtha, when the four son of Dashrath returned to Ajodhya, Kaikeyye herself took proper examination of her four sons along with other students of Rishi Vashishtha. She found Ram the best amongst all, and she realized that Ram deserves to be the ruler.
With the help of Rishi Durvasa, Kaikeyye promoted Ram for further studies and learning skills as a good ruler by sending him to safeguard the researchers and scientists in a region where the terror of Ravana was influential. Ram completed his task devotedly and Rishi Durvasa provided him further skills and abilities under his guidance, also Ram met Sita who had properly chosen a ability to test for her would be husband where Ram won her heart and hence her love too. It was a perfect love-story.
When Ram came back from his winning expedition, Kaikeyye was convinced that Ram deserves to be the ruler of Aryavrata.
One must not forget that in a democratic free civilization, the proper work of the government is to safeguard the citizen from the violent people who initiates the use of physical force, from criminals’ robbers, thief’s gangsters, and corrupt traders. Force can only be applied as retaliation only against those who instigates the force in a free society where liberty is precious for every individual. A democratic impartial government, whose principle and only task must be, the protection of citizens as the police officer, can achieve this.
When Dashrath proposed Ram as the new ruler, whole populace unanimously accepted it that was a democratic choice. However, Dashrath was too emotional, and might have tried to evade the primary objective of a ruler, which Ram must fulfill. In order to make Ram realize that he has a major task to get rid of the terror of Ravana to provide a free system for the citizens of Aryavrata, Kaikeyye dramatically demanded fourteen years of exile for Ram as she knew that any of Dashrath other 3 son may fulfill the duty of Ram as representative.
Ram understood the prerogative of her mother Kaikeyye and willfully accepted the exile to complete his objectivistic task being the ruler.
Sita, being an objectivistic wife of Ram, preferred to be with ram instead of waiting for him at Ajodhya.
In the period of exile, Ram always followed his Objectivistic duties being a ruler completely and most selfishly.
In case of Bali, he knew that Bali was a terrorist terrorizing the people and it was impossible to defeat Bali face to face or arrest him.
Although mercy and forgiveness are good qualities, yet if they be prompted by unreasoning prejudice, mercy becomes equivalent to cruelty and forgiveness becomes as bad as revenge. What we mean to say is that it is not possible to enforce the principle of not causing pain to any living creature on all occasions. Punishing the wicked is, in fact, an act of mercy. If a wicked person be exempted from punishment, thousands will suffer at his hands.
This act of (misplaced) mercy will be as much fruitful of mischief as cruelty, and this act of forgiveness will prove as bad as revenge. It is quite true that mercy consists in endeavoring to promote the happiness of all sentient beings and to wean them from sorrow.
Ram finished Bali and his illegal authority on one part of his governed state and hence completed his task being a ruler.
Ravana was defeated in war and was killed as a war hero after which Ram-Sita returned to Ajodhya and liver happily ever after.
Ram followed his objectivistic duty with most earnest selfish behavior, always tending to follow his self-chosen dharma irrespective of any fear or whimsical unreasonable desires and achieved the status of unanimously chosen best democratic leader/ruler of his times.
On the other hand, Sita was the most objectivistic woman reflecting ram’s moral principles within her own life with utmost sincerity and perfection by virtue of her own objectivistic selfish duty towards her own inherited pleasure. To chose to be with Ram during exile period was her objectivistic right, and to demand the Golden-dear at Kishkindha jungle was her prerogative desire. To protect and safeguard herself against the oppressive Ravana and believing Ram will come to rescue her shows her excellent trust in rationales of life and moral principles, while her gracious return to Ajodhya and attaining the prestige of being the queen of Ajodhya was her attained capable right.
Lakshman Himself was an objectivistic morally principled soldier who willfully chose to serve the moral principles of being a perfect protector of civilians against the oppressive gangster Ravana.
On the other hand, Bharat and Shatrughna trusted their self-worth and self-esteem in following their Dharma of providing a well-established democratic Government where Bharat very optimistically and devotedly fulfilled his role as the representative administrator of Ram.
Together the four were excellent system of a democratic system,
The case of Shabri and Kevat shows how free and well rehearsed the society was without any prejudice and illusive status class system where every individual got his correct worth full grace and price based on his own individualistic self-chosen work depending on his abilities and sense of applicability.
I see no wrong in Valmiki’s Ramayana. However, later versions of Ramayana changed it to some socialistic selfless entailing story that is nothing but a fraud. The addition of Uttarakhand in RamCharitManas by Tulsidas is biggest bigotry based action of plagiarize one can expect.

I consider the love of Ram-Sita as the best love-story amongst all.

 

 

]]> http://www.reasonforliberty.com/inspiration/the-objectivistic-aryavrata.html/feed 0 http://www.reasonforliberty.com/india/the-real-grounds.html http://www.reasonforliberty.com/india/the-real-grounds.html#comments Mon, 26 May 2008 06:29:00 +0000 Unpretentious Diva http://www.reasonforliberty.com/?p=22
There is a big slum in Bhopal city on the left south side of the North TT Nagar. The richness of new market and whole north TT Nagar hides it so that generally, a person, roaming in Bhopal will just ignore it.
Nothing new, every new or old city has such slums and unknown illegal colonies.
There are Hindus living there amalgamated with Muslims and Christians. In addition, Sikhs to a little number lives there.
It is illegal; as I do not think, anyone planned and sanctioned maps for the construction.
Many of them are huts and shambles of some bricks.
Dominique Lapierre (the author of City Of Joy) might have found joy there also. In addition, who knows what the definition of joy is?
There lives some labors some house cleaners and workers, some auto rickshaw drivers, some small shopkeepers, some beggars and some scum and garbage collectors.
It is like a small village out there. In addition, it is not the only slum in Bhopal.
It is true that people needs them, otherwise who will work for the tasks they performs?
We always talks that a person must rise if He/She has potential.
If some rich one does not have the potential and real deserving ability, must not he graciously go down to do those minion works. More ever, is any work can be termed as minion?
On the other hand, the rich one who by chance or by default is rich never takes the plunge to the right spot where he/she must be. Instead, he starts talking of communism and equality. He starts trying to be messiah and awareness provider.
How many who goes to schools and colleges and universities actually deserves it?
Does not they just ruins the resources because neither they wishes to learn and research further to increase the knowledge and develop and create, nor they respects the resources which they got by default.
Anyways, I do not want to criticize anybody.
Some able and aware people reached that slum and started a school during their free times after their jobs. They were no social organization; they were just the boys and girls who played with the people of that slum during their childhood.
There is nothing great in what they tried to do and there is nothing wrong too.
It is there free time and they decide how to use it and enjoy it.
In addition, one of them was I the poor little girl with her debauched mind and arrogant attitude. I liked the idea, to provide a sort of resource to one who is able to use it if I may get even one there.
Therefore, I started visiting there at weekends, providing some books and some basic needs plus a sort of knowledge, which I could.
There I met a girl of 9 years; I do not know her name. All calls her “kallo”.
She was always active and enthusiastic. She was able to understand algebra so easily without any extra effort. I know how difficult it was for my own cousin sister to understand that if -2 added to +2 it becomes zero. Ohh well, my cousin was never so good in mathematics and she always evades it but she is genius in microbiology now. Everyone has her/his pint.
Therefore, I was enthusiastic towards “kallo”. Some five times I met her, gave some books some pencils some copies, taught her some.
Yesterday when I occasionally visited there, I found that she no more visits to that so-called evening school.
The reason was simple. Her grandmother (she is an orphan and lives with her grandparents who work at nearby rich colonies) wanted her to teach housework and earn some hard money.
I simply could not grasp it. I went there to talk to her grandmother; I wanted her to visit school, to learn to study to make her something, which she can.
Her grandmother told me that it is not for her to learn. She said she wants to let her study but people say things. What will she do by learning? It will spoil her. Who will marry her if she will not learn the work? I thought of slapping her. However, she was right. She lives in a place where one’s own self is not for decide what to do, but the one’s own self is to study what others wants her to do. She so selflessly lives there. Looking for what other will think. And how will be the future. If the girl got educated, who will marry her? People will say she knows nothing about the work and she learned “TRIYACHARITAR” and kept roaming here and there. Those were her words. And she is the guardian of my sweet love “kallo”. May be she will work there for her granny until she will be 16 and then her granny will marry her to someone who will again make her to work. i know she will remain am earning woman always.
I personally talked to her. I told her she must leave her granny and come to me, live with me I will teach her I will take care of her. However, she was very enthusiastic about her new work as she got a dress (an old tattered used up frock from her employer) she told me they gave her orange juice to drink and she will be getting Rs250/- per month from there. Ahh, she is almost 10 and is earning. Who says money is not important?
That girl is killing her very own self for some money. She is not selfish she just does not knows her self and do not want to safeguard it.
I cannot fight with her guardians too. She has two elder brothers also who also works. The fun is, her granny insist those boys two go to the government school and study and hence get the government job later which their father was appointed to. Nevertheless, they do not likes to go to school, they bunks and plays and steals and enjoys and yes works too.
I found no way to inspire her. I gave up with a decision to not to go back there ever.
I wanted her granny or herself to bind me to take her custody, to insist me to educate her to keep her at my house. I might have given her granny the money she thinks she could have earned.
However, when they themselves do not want to rise, why should I ruffle there freedom?
Therefore, I came back. Thinking and wishing that some day “kallo will visit me and ask me to help her. To help her because, she wants to and she deserves the help too.

]]> http://www.reasonforliberty.com/india/the-real-grounds.html/feed 0 http://www.reasonforliberty.com/inspiration/freedom-the-emerging-light.html http://www.reasonforliberty.com/inspiration/freedom-the-emerging-light.html#comments Wed, 21 May 2008 01:32:00 +0000 Unpretentious Diva http://www.reasonforliberty.com/?p=109 ________________________________________
I have spoken words'
That I thought,
Would never cross my lips.
Despite my inhibitions'
They spill out my mouth,
And leave me bare.

Emotions caress my mind,
That had been locked,
Up so deep inside.I had forgotten'
Where they were,
They leave me trembling.
All the darkness'
That surrounds me,
Is fading away.
And I am awash'
In the pale light,That leaves me free.
________________________________________

]]>
________________________________________
I have spoken words’
That I thought,
Would never cross my lips.
Despite my inhibitions’
They spill out my mouth,
And leave me bare.

Emotions caress my mind,
That had been locked,
Up so deep inside.
I had forgotten’
Where they were,
They leave me trembling.

All the darkness’
That surrounds me,
Is fading away.
And I am awash’
In the pale light,
That leaves me free.
________________________________________

________________________________________
Staring from the darkness’
The bright light in her eyes,
As she walks past the barrier.
She is stripped of her disguise’
Shimmering light shines on her,
Creating color every where.
The breeze swirls gently through’
Her chestnut locks of hair,
Her eyes of green tear up.
At the beauty through which she walks’
The darkness can no longer hold her,
No matter how or where it stalks.
She raises her arms up high’
And the light she does embrace,
She is full of mystery.
A secret smile upon her face’
For she is innocence,
And hope that shines in light.
Healed as she walks through shadows’
And emerges from the night!
________________________________________

]]> http://www.reasonforliberty.com/inspiration/freedom-the-emerging-light.html/feed 0 http://www.reasonforliberty.com/atheism/the-indomitable-self-esteem-rational-self-interest.html http://www.reasonforliberty.com/atheism/the-indomitable-self-esteem-rational-self-interest.html#comments Fri, 02 May 2008 23:09:00 +0000 Unpretentious Diva http://www.reasonforliberty.com/?p=82

It is the first part of Ayn Rand’s first television interview, in which she encapsulated the essence of Objectivism. In this first part, she discusses the post conformist Morality, emphasizing the Individual’s right to live for his happiness, that a Man is an end in himself and has a right to live for his own rational self-interest.
What is rational self-interest?
Rational self-interest is the basic premise, that every man has freedom to use his mind for his own benefits. He has capability to choose for himself and to decide for his development, that he is not a sacrificial animal to live for others benefits, nor he can force others to live for his sake. That a Man lives, by virtue of his mind, and enjoy his own earned rights and happiness with self-esteem.
“Self-Sacrifice is Evil.” Self-sacrifice is the precept that man needs to serve others in order to justify his existence that his moral duty is to serve others.
The reasonable concept of love arises from the base of virtues. The virtues a man acquires in his character by applying the reason for an Independent, Honest living.
One cannot love anyone because of pity. If one loves, a person, it means that, he considers that person as worthy, worthy of his love. That worth does not comes merely from the materialistic possession of that person, but that worth is dependent on the vital principles, a Man holds for his life.
One cannot love a rapist, a criminal, a terrorist. Only a crook may love a crook. A corrupt person only can love the corrupt.
One loves people not for what they do for him, or what he did for them, but he should love people for the virtues and values the other person have achieved in their own character.

In this second part, Ayn Rand clearly strengthen the Democracy.
She clearly states that although there’s nothing wrong in Democracy, but majority should be prevailed only in public or political processes, and Democracy must be limited, by inalienable Individual Rights. Majority cannot vote a Man’s life, or property or freedom away from him. If a Majority votes for an issue, that doesn’t means that issue is right. Majority doesn’t make it right. Reason decides it righteousness. Democratic process must be held by voluntary concerns, voluntary co-operation of a man, unforced. That government must have no right to initiate force or compulsion against any citizen except a criminal. There should be no right by the government like tax. There should be separation of state and economics. Just like state and religion must remain separated, state and economics must also remain separated. Nobody, neither employers nor employees should use governmental compulsion and force for their own benefits, that a laissez-faire economy, a completely free economic sector is necessity of a free-society.
She explains how collectivism trend reaches to dictatorship and economical disaster.
An example of deep-rooted Collectivism

In this part, she discusses her own life.
She explains that how helping someone also, is a rational action, if it is not sacrifice, if it is intended with rational self-interest and selfish happiness.
She further explains how and why, monopoly is impossible in a laissez-faire economy and that is why, it is best economic system. A free economy will NOT break-down. All depressions are caused by Government interference.
For the two thousand years, the world has been dominated by other philosophies and moralities based on altruism. Look around, consider the results.

A TRIBUTE TO AYN RAND

]]> http://www.reasonforliberty.com/atheism/the-indomitable-self-esteem-rational-self-interest.html/feed 0 http://www.reasonforliberty.com/current-affairs/the-objectivistic-victory-of-british-doctors-of-indian-origin.html http://www.reasonforliberty.com/current-affairs/the-objectivistic-victory-of-british-doctors-of-indian-origin.html#comments Thu, 01 May 2008 13:50:00 +0000 Unpretentious Diva http://www.reasonforliberty.com/?p=81 “I work for nothing but my own profit—which I make by selling a product they need to men who are willing and able to buy it. I do not produce it for their benefit at the expense of mine, and they not buy it for my benefit at the expense of theirs. I do not sacrifice my interest to them, nor do they sacrifice their interests to me. We deal as equals by mutual consent to mutual advantage and I am proud of every penny I have earned in this manner.” (Atlas Shrugged)
On April 30th (yesterday), House of Lords ruled in favor of overseas doctors against British Government, suggesting that the discrimination against foreign employee in health services of UK is wrong and should be curbed out.
In 2006, British government ordered the hospital trusts whole round UK to employ non-EU medical practitioners “only if” no candidate from EU is vacant.
Obviously, the rule was derogatory to the standards of freedom of the employer.
The British Association of Physicians of Indian Origin (BAPIO) challenged against it in court and the House of Lords favored the Indian employees.
It is expected that now, UK government will treat the foreign origin doctors, specially the Indians on fair and equal terms on the foundation of skills and merit for the jobs at National Health services of UK.
As a matter of fact, discrimination on any grounds for jobs is illegal and immoral and is against the freedom of the employer and the immigrant in the quest for employment.
Let us consider a scenario in India. There is a job for which there are two contenders and you have to employ one of them.
One of them is a hard-working, brilliant and motivated. He has endeavored allot to acquire high education and skills which are requisite of the job. His mark sheets are excellent with top grades; his previous record shows that he is honest and trustworthy worker with high admirations from his previous employers. Above all that, he came to India from a far nation (say Nigeria, or Kuwait, or Bangladesh, or say Pakistan to set-up in a new culture risking allot just to pursue a career he wishes to work for and gain a better life.
Other person has mainly no skills for the job and he expects training for it, he is not a good learner his mark sheets show it. He is just an average worker with no knowledge about the work you are going to offer.
Which candidate would you appoint for the job?
I would employ the first one because he will be more fruitful for me. It would be a decision of justice, a deserving incentive for the one who has worked hard to gain proficiency and improvement.
There won’t come any discrimination on grounds of nationality or ethnicity or religion, there should not be.
Now, if the Indian government says that you cannot appoint the first employee because he is not Indian and no matters the second employee is lacking skills and ability, he must be appointed because he is Indian, won’t it be injustice against you?
Injustice because it will be against your right of freedom to chose the best worker for your benefits. You do not do business for the nation; you do business for your own profits and improvement. It would be Injustice against that employee too who clearly deserves the job.
Being an Indian doesn’t make him any better nor provides any right for the job which he simply cannot do better.
Now, some will say, being the employer, I must train the Indian employee who is skill less so that he may also become fruitful, but I should not employ the first one just because of the duties towards the nation.
The question is, why should I waste my efforts, energy, resources and money to train an unskillful person while I denounce the skillful person who will surely be much more profitable for me?
On the same grounds of argument, The British Association of Physicians of Indian Origin (BAPIO) won against the UK Government and got the decision of House of Lords in their favor.
Each individual has rights as an individual, not as a member of this country or that nation. One has rights not by virtue of being an Indian, but by virtue of being human.
There is no immorality if a person come far away from his home to work here in India, nor there any wrong if does an employer appoint him for the job on the basis of his skills and honesty.
There can be no good in any policy which discriminates a person from other on any grounds like religion or ethnicity or caste or region or nationality or gender etc.
A person gets the right for a job not by virtue of his birth in a particular area or nation or family, but by virtue of his skills, he earns that right.
So, none of such discriminatory laws can be justified.
Obviously, the win of BAPIO against the UK government is a moment of enjoyment for the victory of Individualism and Objective premises of living.
But, in our own country, in our own land, how much objective and justified we are?
We discriminates, we discriminates and opposes others earned rights on the grounds of caste, religion, region and language.
We are suffering from ills of quotas and reservation on grounds of caste and religion. We attack each other on grounds of regional discriminations. It is Injustice against Individual liberty of the employers and the skillful employee. And it is wrong. There can be no justified ground for any sort of discrimination on grounds of caste, religion, region, language, color, gender, nation…
The reservation policies of government are corrupt and injustice against the Individual liberty and must be culled, because we don’t work for nation, we work for our own life.

Achievement of your happiness is the only moral purpose of your life, and that happiness, not pain or mindless self-indulgence, is the proof of your moral integrity, since it is the proof and the result of your loyalty to the achievement of your values.
Ayn Rand

]]> http://www.reasonforliberty.com/current-affairs/the-objectivistic-victory-of-british-doctors-of-indian-origin.html/feed 5 http://www.reasonforliberty.com/education/promoting-reasonable-morality-rationality-objective-reality-for-the-aid-of-capitalism.html http://www.reasonforliberty.com/education/promoting-reasonable-morality-rationality-objective-reality-for-the-aid-of-capitalism.html#comments Fri, 25 Apr 2008 08:17:00 +0000 Unpretentious Diva http://www.reasonforliberty.com/?p=75 Recently, a well-established Bank of America (BB&T) donated a lavish amount of more than $30 millions to 27 universities, along with the University of North Carolina Charlotte, for the approval that “Atlas Shrugged” would become vital reading for students, BB&T agreed to donate $2 million to the University of Texas at Austin to construct a chair in Objectivism’.
The question arises that what is that in the book Atlas Shrugged, which the bank want the new generation students of America to read and understand, and is there anything in that book which makes it important to be read by the new generation of India too?
India is a mixed economy which is just beginning to liberate, just recently in 1991-1992 India started liberalization of economy, it prospers to the scope that capitalism is permitted to flourish and fails to the degree that socialism deteriorates it.
It is a known fact that Capitalism and Laissez-Faire System is the only moral system for Market, because of the reason that it is the system based on the security of individual rights. It is not the system of centrally-dictated money, or destructive regulations from SEBI or RBI, nor welfare and socialized medicine, nor subsidized water, education, food, or grains, nor bailouts of mortgage lenders or borrowers. It is a system embedded in the reasonable individual rights, freedom, and the personal accountability innate in both. Ayn Rand was the first person to identify the moral basis of capitalism, and to let India out of the morass and quagmire of altruism-collectivism-communism-socialism, we need her ideas more desperately than Americans.Rand is about taking absolute responsibility for everything in your life with or without fault. As a matter of fact, Ayn Rand’s ideas are nothing different than the basic Indian philosophy of Dharma, Karma, Yoga and Bhoga.
Every Individual is free to choose the rational ethical lines and ways (Dharma) for his life, once an individual determines his ethical values and way of living by his own with complete freedom in absence of any peer pressure, he is expected to devote his life on his own chosen ethical rational lines and act accordingly (Karma). His actions will be judged by the reason and will summation (Yoga) as result. Whatever will be the result of his endeavors based on his own chosen ethical rational lines will have to be accepted by him either as the happiness for his success or sorrow for his loss or satisfaction for his efforts, he cannot escape from the result of his own chosen actions (Bhoga). Ayn Rand raised the rational egoism and disparaged the greed and assumption of the people who tries to maneuver the system for their own profit through the machinery of the government instead of letting money flow aptly to those who produced it.
Her books are simple treaties of rational ethics and morality which thoroughly invalidates the nit-pickers, whiners, complainers and losers who don’t put their back into it and rather try to mooch people through wealth redistribution. .
Her egoism is based on the principle of “rational self-interest” which promotes the confidence of an individual in his own self and helps him in making rational decisions and moving forward with determination, not looking for others to decide for him or judge him.
Ayn Rand provides an outstandingly moral defense of capitalism that one can’t find anywhere else. By “Rational Selfishness” she means that your center of attention must be on what you know you can do for what you can accomplish on your chosen rational line…for the advantage of your own aims, applying creativity and generating opulence for your own self and all others you impact and engage. Theft of Sprit and subjugation of Individualism has created a cohort of people who are asking “what’s in it for me” rather than asking “what can I accomplish for me”.
Objectivism is the tone of voice of the post-confirmative morality and counter-culture. It brings in a new set of ethical principles to shield Individualism, freedom and Capitalism that is embedded in reality, neither praying to mystical gods in heaven nor the peers and neighbors next door, but to the Individual’s own innate nature as a being who lives by his rational faculty (MIND) and the things it can produce using it. Ayn Rand’s books give an absolutely innovative mental picture of what a proper man and apposite rational life should look like. This is the reason why it is more enjoyed as a philosophy, and not merely a political theory. She also posits innovatory theories on aesthetics and epistemology. She is required reading for any ambitious thinker.
Those who refuse Objectivism but endeavor to be defenders of Capitalism will ultimately fall back on the ethical battle-ground and that is prevalent all around these days.
Objectivism is a philosophy with the purpose of rejecting the fake alternatives of the past and challenges an Individual to question the fundamental values and virtues by which he should guide his life. Objectivism is neither theistic nor relativist or subjectivist. It is neither liberal nor conservative. It advances life in a brand new way.
Ayn Rand never advocated hedonism; she propounded a principled, ethical, rational existence suitable to an Individual. There can be no compromise on Rational Vital principles Atlas Shrugged has a simple philosophy that is easily summed up. It is to fight irrationality. The Idea of Atlas Shrugged is not, “Greed is good,” but that “Sloth and entitlement are bad.” The book clearly present that it is easier for elected administrative governments to prevail and persist under the guise of Robin Hood serving to “benfit” a population of envious unskillful voters. That’s what is happening in India, and should be opposed.
The intention is not that greed is good, but that welfare is a fatally degrading insult to the Individual spirit“Man’s ego is the fountain head of human progress.” Fountainhead by Ayn Rand
Reading and understanding Ayn Rand’s work possibly will be fairly constructive today in a society that promotes and forces conformity, from infancy and keeps indoctrinating Individuals. Being an individualist, who is ready to go against the dogmatic establishment, has advanced every field and form of art, science and technology which according to me, is the right meaning of progress.
I will certainly recommend each and every student whole round the world to read each and every book of Ayn Rand by himself. But to force it as compulsory course at graduation levels won’t be right, let the students decide for it. Yet, her books should be promoted at High School and senior secondary school levels in India also.
I keep promoting her books in my new generation friends’ lol.

]]> http://www.reasonforliberty.com/education/promoting-reasonable-morality-rationality-objective-reality-for-the-aid-of-capitalism.html/feed 0