Hello Friends, I have shifted my writing portal from here to http://rationallibertariancorner.com/ you may check for my New articles at my website.

While discussing about the legal system of a free society, we often mention private legal firms and jurisdiction to take care of petty criminal incidences along with hard core crimes that may occur in such a free society where there is no government or aggressive authority to suppress Individual Freedom.

However, I have found that most of the supporters of democratic governmental systems oppose the idea claiming that such a free system will destruct itself and individuals will actually lose any available freedom in absence of state ruled jurisdiction and policing system. Often they mention hypothetical examples of sexual offenses and oppose the idea that a sexual offender can actually remain free in a free society if he makes an agreement with the victim and pay the agreed amount of money as fine to the victim and corresponding private security firm/s to which the victim and culprit have registered.

They feel that it is an obnoxious idea because if such monetary penalties are allowed for sexual cries, then no rapist will ever attain any serious punishment as they will victimize poor girls and boys for their criminal lust. The poor victim, being poor, will opt to compromise for a handsome amount of money and will not demand any physical punishment or jail term for the culprit. Such opposition occurs because of the common biasness against sex workers. People often feel that prostitution or selling sex for money is bad or immoral and hence they feel it should be avoided. Now if in a free society, the rapist is allowed to remain free of punishment for meager monetary payments, then it would be a direct support to prostitution.  If the rape victim accepts money for being raped, then it is no rape, it is simple prostitution.

It is hard to convince people about the moral soundness of prostitution. They won’t believe that sex is an art and sexual acts are art form. When a woman performs sex to fulfill requirements of a man or when a man perform sex to fulfill requirements of a woman, then they actually perform work and for that work, they are entitled to ask for payments.

However, there certainly is a difference between a rape case and a case of prostitution. A prostitute initially agrees for serving or entertaining man or men with her sexual art. Oh well, it is not necessary that every prostitute should be highly skilled in sexual art. Yet, she demands money for whatever sexual satisfaction she provides to her clients.  On the other hand, a rapist is not a prostitute, she was never ready to be used for sexual pleasure by her rapist and at least she was not ready for that when she was being raped.

Since the rape victim is not a prostitute and she was not ready for being sexually used initially, she has a right to demand for a jail term or physical punishment for the rapist. What if the rapist doesn’t agree to accept physical punishment or jail term and insist for monetary fine? He may succeed in making a compromise with girl. If the girl accepts monetary fine, then she cannot say that she was being raped. If she accepts monetary payment/fine for being raped, she is no different than a prostitute. I guess any woman will accept monetary fine for being raped rather than forcing physical payment or jail term for her rapist.

Impostors of fake morality may oppose my guess, but the real life supports my idea of accepting monetary fine or punishment for rape victims and allowing rapists to remain free. Recently, the Supreme Court of India allowed three rapists to enjoy freedom and removed all charges against them after they won an agreement with the rape victim who asked for monetary fine from culprits in place of prolonged jail term for them.

The rapists were initially awarded with a jail term of 14 years. Justices Markandeya Katju and Gyan Sudha Mishra maintained the conviction of the three rapists and said that the sentence of 10 years stood reduced to three-and-a-half years, the period of imprisonment already undergone.

The court further directed the convicts, who had raped the victim in Ludhiana on March 5, 1997, to pay a fine of Rs 50,000 each. Now since the three rapists have already suffered three and a half years of jail term, they have been freed.¹

I don’t think anyone will now criticize the poor rape victim who appealed in the court to reduce the jail term for her rapists and to allow her to take monetary fine from each of the rapists. Obviously, it was her right and she made good use of it.

1. SC lets off rapists before time, SC Let off rapists before time

Hello Friends, I have shifted my writing portal from here to http://rationallibertariancorner.com/ you may check for my New articles at my website.

Every human has four endowments- self awareness, conscience, independent will and creative imagination. These give us the ultimate human freedom… The power to choose, to respond, to change (Stephen Covey)

Human is a rational animal. None of us can ignore or deny the importance of the above mentioned four important endowments, none of us is such who does not use these effective tools of a rational mind in our daily routine life. Yet the extent to which we are aware of our rational faculty and its immense power to create happiness and success varies from person to person.

Self Awareness, Conscience and Independent Will

The process of discovering one’s own potential and accepting its limits at a certain point of time and to strive to increase is the real way to progress. A person with clear self awareness live and act in a manner which they discover using their own rational faculty, their mind, the inner compass to assess whether an act is possible or not, whether a particular way of thinking or behaviour is right or wrong.

In some situations, one may find himself in conflict between the established norms and his own perception of the circumstances. Man is a rational being; he has a choice either to accept the conventional norms or to apply his personal aptitude to find his way out of such situations. Yet, one cannot apply their rational mind if they are not aware of the effectiveness of the rational tools they possess. It is not necessary that a self-aware, independent person will always go against the socially established norms. An independent person is surely not anti-social; rather he (she) is pro-progressive with a will for improvement and refinement. The society may find such personal attitude as idiosyncratic and often oppose it, yet every person gains and enjoys the progress brought upon by such independent people. One of the famous examples of such a character was Galileo who dared not to accept the conventional norms and tried to establish the fact that the Earth revolves round the Sun. He was punished for his strive to solve out the mysteries of planetary system, yet he was not anti-social.

Often people lose the will to discover their own potential because of the religious, traditional and social aspects of their surroundings. Right since their birth, men are taught to follow the established norms. Children are taught to behave in a manner that will please others. They are taught to gain the approval of others. Peer pressures and need to compete with others often blurs the ability of person to seek his own self and to develop and sharpen his rational tools. They grow up as situation dependents and lack the potential to access the independent zone.

The first step towards realizing the importance and potential of one’s independent rational self, it is very necessary to realize whether one is free or he is independent.

A situation dependent person often becomes docile against the social norms and tends to believe that the best way to live is to please others and gain their approval.
A Situation dependent person

• Depends on the circumstances and finds himself unable to improve situations or change them.
• Fails to detect and make use of the non-salient or not so obvious clues that may bring forth a sudden surge of progress or effectiveness of their acts.
• Fails to give a shape or structure to uncertain yet seemingly rational and creative imagination and ideas.
• Fails to link the evolving information with the already established norms to judge whether they are right or wrong and is there a need to change or go against the established norms.
• Such person fails to retrieve information from their previous experiences. They lack the potential to learn from their mistakes and that is why they remain close to any possible progress.
• Often such people fail to gain the real inspiration which is intrinsic, rather they depend on extrinsic motivation and want others to suggest, direct or order them to achieve new goals.
• Often such people are extrovert as they seek other’s approval and most often they invest their inner and yet unknown potential to convince or impress others.

A person with self awareness and an independent mind will have an entirely different approach

• He will be able to recognize objects and motives distinctly and eminent from the circumstances.
• He will be able to enlist the priorities, discarding the irrelevant and trivial issues to concentrate on rationally beneficial points.
• He will be able to provide a rationally viable structure for his rational creativity and imaginations.
• Even the most rational person can commit mistakes, yet his process of learning and experiencing will make him able to link his prior experiences with current situations to help him avoid repeating similar mistakes and to attain progress.
• A person with an independent mind always seeks the real inspiration emanating from his inner self. He knows that the potential inspiration is always intrinsic in nature.
• He is self-motivated and self-content. He does not seek approval from others rather, he considers his own rational faculty as the only tool available to help him in understanding the reality.
• Often such people are introverts, deep thinking, and rational speakers. They choose not to impress others with vague expositions; rather they believe that the results of their endeavours will show the way.

Irrespective of being a dependent person or an independent person, everyone owns a certain rational faculty, his mind. That is why there always are possibilities to strive for improvement. Once a person realizes his own position and limits to which he is using his mind, he can strive for self-awareness and the conscience to understand and recognize their independent will and ability to give shape for their creative imagination in a rational manner.
So, are you willing to strive for achieving the independence of your mind?

The number of Indian families earning about $4500 to $22000 (Rs2,00000, Rs10,00000) per anum, which constitutes the middle class as per the World Bank’s definition of middle class in 1995-96 was 4.5 million, the number of such households grew to 0.7 million in 2001-02. Now India has 28.4 million such families by 2009-10. One can say that the Indian families are growing rich, from poor or deprived families; they are traversing towards the middle income group range. Irrespective of the higher inflation rates, one can justifiably state that the number of high-income households in India has exceeded the number of low-income households and similar is the assertion of National Council of Applied Economic Research (NCAER).¹

Can India achieve richness?

The first issue is about the term India, how can a geographical region grow rich? Individuals in that region may surely gain prosperity but the region in itself is not able to achieve richness. Another issue is, even if India represents its people and not the geographical region, then how can a group or collective society or state grow rich? To grow rich is a Human Action,and a Human Action can be performed only by individual actors, only individuals possess ends and goals and the means to achieve those goals. A group or a collective society or a state cannot act, it even cannot decide. In fact a society cannot exist without the actions of individual members² .” This certainly means that “India growing Rich” is a metaphor. India cannot grow rich, it cannot be poor, what is being said is that the number of individual families that are now in a richly or prosperous state is increasing. Obviously, it has nothing to do with the society or state or country that is represented by India. Yet, it certainly has a lot to do with the freedom individuals have in the Indian society and how is it influencing their person conditions.
This follows that although a society cannot exist independently without the actions of Individuals, the individuals and their actions can be affected by the society, state or country. That is, if a person in India or his family is growing rich, it is but obvious the result of his hard work and talent, but if a person is living in dire conditions, one of the many reason behind it can be the restrictions or the influence of the society or country he is living in. But how can a country restrict anybody from being rich or poor? Since country cannot act, it cannot restrict, nor can a society restrict. Yet, the “government” representing a society or community or country can surely restrict the individuals it represents. Yet again, what is government? It is a group of some individuals that take decisions and enforces their decisions and policies over the population of their state. When someone says that “government act” what he means is to say that certain individuals are in a certain relationship with other individuals and act in a way that they and the other individuals recognize as “governmental’³ .” The issue is very important to understand. To explain it further, take the issue of tobacco. Indian government pays farmers to grow tobacco; on the other hand, it forces all the companies selling tobacco products to include anti-smoking, anti-tobacco-chewing advertisements on their products. Both actions are contradictory, one may say government should make up their mind and take a consistent action. The thing is, government has no mind, it cannot think, it cannot act. Rather, there are individuals, politicians, judges, bureaucrats, etc. who thinks and take actions.
Thus, even a government cannot act; ultimately the individuals only can take actions; only individuals can have ends and the means to achieve those ends.

Is India really growing rich?

While talking about NCAER results, Martin Ravallion suggest that all these estimates by NCAER far exceed the likely number of people in India who are not poor by US standards. At the start, he simply ignores the importance of Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) and blatantly states that “I will not say that someone has entered the Western middle class until the person has reached the US poverty line”⁴ . Obviously it is not so easy to understand that a person cannot buy a Reynolds’s ball pen in Rs 5 (approximately $0.1) but one can buy the same ball pen in India at that price. Irrespective of that fact, one cannot say that NCAER’s research is free of errors.

Why India is growing rich?

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

Is Government Facilitating this Prosperity?

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

Conclusion:

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

1. Times of India, August 1, 2010, India has more rich people than poor now
2. Murray Rothbard, “Man, Economy, and State”, Auburn, Ala.: Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2004, pp. 2–3.
3. Murray Rothbard, “Man, Economy, and State”, Auburn, Ala.: Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2004, pp. 2–3.
4. Martin Ravallion, January 2009, The Developing World’s Bulging (but Vulnerable) Middle Class, The World Bank Development Research Group

Hello Friends, I have shifted my writing portal from here to http://rationallibertariancorner.com/ you may check for my New articles at my website.

Global warming or climate change is a worldwide disquiet that needs to be addressed in a proper way. Scientific studies have regularly provided enough evidences regarding the regarding the human activities that harms the natural balance of our planet by producing large amounts of greenhouse gases (GHGs), most notably Carbon Di Oxide (CO2) by burning fuels. Now when it is established that global warming is a real concern, why is it that the world’s leading power, the United States is not able to legislate enough stern laws to check the pollution, emission of greenhouse gases, human activities that are causing global warming and to provide better greener ways to lead the world. The United States is the biggest contributor of green house gases, specifically the Carbon Di Oxide emission from coal based power plants, the Energy Information Administration (EIA) of U.S reports that the United States’ Greenhouse Gas emission grew by 12% between 1990 and 2001. The global warming has already raised the average global sea level by four to eight inches during the last 100 years. Scientists believe that the increasing levels of GHGs may cause acute climatic and health impacts on humanity. Despite of all these known facts, the government of United States under the leadership of President George W. Bush rejected the Kyoto Protocol of 1997 and refused to sign the agreement that required United States to reduce its GHGs emission rate to 5% to 8% below their average level of 1990 by 2008 to 2012. On the other hand, Bush supported the idea of voluntary research and efforts at enhancing energy efficiency. In 2002 at Climate Action Report to the United Nations, Bush administration accepted the risks from global warming and informed that the GHGs emission of United States will increase by almost 43 per cent between 2002 and 2020 if the US government does not take stern actions to reduce GHGs emission¹ In July 2004, Bush administration again accepted in their report to Congress on U.S. Climate Change Science Program that that the most probable explanation for global warming since 1950 is the increasing levels of carbon dioxide from human activities. However, Bush administration maintained their position to not to opt for any compulsory policies to reduce the emission of GHGs until more conclusive evidences about global warming are not produced. Global warming is affecting everybody on the earth and it is the cause of serious damages to all. Yet, no country initiates to take stern steps to reduce their reduction of GHGs. In his journal regarding Global Warming and its affect, Bradford Mank raises the question “Is Injury to All Injury to None?”² The idea is simple, since global warming is definitely hurting everybody, yet, the prevention requires immediate actions that may prove to be commercially unviable, hence the governments throughout the world and specially the US government hesitate to bring about any concrete change in their policies to reduce emission of GHGs. Maybe, the injury to all is nobody’s concern.
On January 20th, 2009, when Barack Obama took charge as the 44th president of US, everybody hoped for better involvement of United States government and Congress in the bid to reduce the emission of GHGs worldwide³
Yet, apart from some policy changes, the new administration of US also failed to take any concrete and defining step to face the dangers of global warming and to resolve to reduce the emission of GHGs significantly.

Federal/National Climate Policy

The Copenhagen Climate Summit failed⁴ to impress anybody and despite all the hopes attached with Obama, no significant change was visible. Obviously, Obama administration had a great deal of immediate problems to tackle with including the recession period of 2009, the huge stimulus and highly increasing national debt along with the socialistic burdensome programs like healthcare reforms. However, a change was visible in the attitude of administration and on January 26, 2009, the House of Representatives of US Energy Independence and Climate Legislation, the Congress also passed the American Clean Energy and Security Act, both the legislations were meant to encourage renewable energy usage and increase energy efficiency. The Cash for Clunker program suggested the US administration’s initiative towards the greener options, the Cap Carbon Trade plan showed positive approach towards greener US, and US government also started trying to encourage innovators and entrepreneurs to create greener jobs.⁵ . The Clean Energy Job and American Power Act provided many programs that will raise funds from government to invest in the inventions and development of greener options for electricity requirements and will provide huge opportunity of green jobs.⁶ Yet, on bigger plan, there is no strict path towards achieving and implementing some policies that would lead US to reduce the emission of GHGs to about 5% to 8% below the level of 1990′s.
Not only that, all these positive steps towards clean air, green surroundings, clear atmosphere and cooler globe faced opposition within the senate in the form of The Dirty Air Act. The Dirty Air Act attacks the Clean Air Act directly. Many big oil companies and some senators along with their lobbyists claimed that Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) statement about the dangers of carbon pollution does not show any major threat to public health or welfare. If the Dirty Air Act passes, the US consumption of foreign and domestic oil will increase further and that will undo all the positive steps taken towards greener USA.⁷

Business Partnerships

One of the main reason behind the inability of the Congress of US is the powerful US corporate that funds in electoral campaigns. The business partnerships of US provide a space of such political forum where the motives of big enterprises cannot be ignored. Obviously, the big conglomerate like BP America, DuPont, and General Electric etc cannot afford to let Congress restrict their source of profits. Furthermore, no government would like to hurt the economy of the nation by almost destroying the leading industries of the country. The big oil companies deny accepting Clean Air Act, or any other proposal to reduce the carbon consumption.
William R. Cline in his book The Economics of Global Warming explained the expected economic damages that may be caused by global warming. He suggested that if the damages caused by global warming are smaller than the costs of reduction of emissions from fossil fuels, deforestation and other sources, than the attempt to discourage usage of carbon or fossil fuels is irrational.⁸
Self-interest is the main motive of any person that drives him to take rational decisions and implement them properly. Thus, if it is shown that the economic losses due to global warming are much more than the losses one will face by reducing carbon consumption, than naturally, the person will opt to reduce carbon consumption because that will be lesser loss for him or her and it will be healthier option too. Thus, it is easier for individuals to opt for greener options while it is difficult for the government or Congress to resolve and adopt policies to control carbon footprints. The reason being, as a collective, Congress or US government cannot think for individual losses, they will only think for the better profits of maintaining relations with big conglomerates, big oil companies and industries like GE, DuPont etc. The evil nexus of government and corporate will never let the greener options establish themselves in the market because the government will keep stimulating the conglomerates. Yet, an individual by himself can opt for greener, hybrid cars, which will consumer lesser fuel, the individual as a consumer may rift the market towards the greener options available in the market. The key to the trouble of global warming is consumerism. Consumerism is the principle of Free Market, which states, “free choice of consumer should rule the market, or, the consumer decides the economic structure of the society”.⁹
As it is clear that the public realizes the dangers of global warming much better than the Congress or US government, the citizens should opt for the free market principle rather than waiting for government to take proper actions. If the consumers prefers and demand green alternatives, clearer energy resources, fuel efficient cars, energy efficient appliances, renewable energy resources and other appliances to reduce their individual carbon fingerprints, than the producer, manufacturers and providers will be forced to provide environmental friendly alternatives for the society. Consumerism is the boon for human development (Reason for Liberty, 2010), and hence, if the individuals, the consumers consider that global warming is greater loss and hence they should opt for greener options, than the entrepreneurs, innovators and manufacturers will themselves be heralded towards providing greener options because that will be the more profitable execution for them. Once the big conglomerate start producing greener alternatives, the government will also feel no objection to provide greener policies, also, when consumers themselves will demand green market, green goods, green services and lesser carbon fingerprints, then the role of government will be minimal in case of improving the conditions of global temperatures.

Performance of States on global warming platform

Stephen Lacey reports that some of the states are moving faster towards green renewable energy options than the federal government or Congress. California, New Jersey, New York, Arizona and Ohio are not only proving to be great market for renewable energy resources like solar energy and wind energy, the state governments are also promoting the renewable energy options to far extent. Recently, Texas got rid of its eight coal power plants.¹⁰ Texas not only opted for nuclear alternative, but the Texas government approved plans to supply 35 per cent of power needs through renewable energy resources.
Stephen Lacey further reveal that the interference of state government in market through the SREC program is benefitting few large companies at the expense of many small companies.¹¹ The picture clarifies the reason why the state governments are running faster towards greener US with lesser carbon footprints. The federal government deals with higher degree of market interference and hence, the Congress remains in effect of big business to create corrupt nexus that cannot decide for better greener options. State governments on the other hand have lesser power to interfere with the market, hence they are a little faster, yet, if somehow the government is decentralized and restricted from interfering the market, that is, if the market is left free, then the market will force the entrepreneurs, manufacturers, producers and business conglomerates to provide better, greener options to reduce the GHGs emission and ease the acute global warming conditions, the reason being, consumers demand “green” solutions to the global warming crisis. The demand of green alternatives by consumers will prompt the free market to create green jobs and will incentivize the entrepreneurs and energy industries to innovate better energy efficient renewable energy resources extraction.

Conclusion: The Actual Way to Improve Climate

It is quite clear that the US congress and federal government is lacking will and strong leadership to bring about any significant change in the policies to reduce pollution and greenhouse gases emission. The nexus between politicians, big business conglomerates and oil companies seems to be evil enough to thwart any possible change in the attitude of Congress towards the acute need of reducing carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases emission. It is evident that if nothing would be done to prevent or slow down global warming, there can be disastrous consequences on whole world. US federal government and Congress find it self unable to deal with the situation because the Congress cannot afford the economic turmoil if it breaks relations with the big business conglomerates and oil companies. Instead of taking firm and stern actions to compel the big industries to reduce their carbon footprints, Congress tries to cajole them to agree with a cap on carbon. Pete DuPont stated clearly that “global warming looks like neither the alarmists’ serious threat, nor an immediate crisis that requires governmental control of America’s economy to reduce it”, He suggested that Congress should consider the costs before passing policies on Global Warming.¹² In such a scenario, it is difficult to believe that the big conglomerates like BP America, DuPont, and General Electric etc will accept the necessity of time so easily. Yet, there is a hope to save the earth against the ill-human activities. The individual citizens of U.S and whole round the world can force the conglomerates, politicians and governments too by denying their interference and monopoly in market and by demanding better, greener and feasible energy options.
Once the consumers themselves decide to reduce their own carbon footprints, the big companies will be forced to follow the suit. Congress, federal government and state government meanwhile should stop interfering with the market and let the new players, competitors, entrepreneurs and innovators provide better and efficient energy solutions so that the big conglomerate of US may also feel compelled to work towards a greener future. The key for a better, greener and safer world against the glooming danger of global warming is in the hands of consumer and in the policies of free market. The nexus between government, politicians and big business need to relieve the market to create greener world.

1. Climate Action Report, 2002, Ratification of Kyoto Aside: How International Law and Market Uncertainty Obviate the Current U.S. Approach to Climate Change Emissions
2. Bradford Mank, 2005, Standing and Global Warming; Environmental Law, Vol. 35
3. Oliver A. Houck, 2009, Break Through: From the Death of Environmentalism to the Politics of Possibility
4. BBC News, 2009, Why Did Copenhagen fail to deliver a climate deal? BBC News, 22nd December, 2009
5. Legislation, Energy Independence and Global Warming Committee of US, 2010
6. Clean Energy Job and American Power Act, 2009
7. Dirty Air Act round up, 2010
8. William R. Cline, 1992, The Economics of Global Warming, Institute for International Economics Washington DC
9. Reason for Liberty, 2010, Consumerism is a Boon for Human Development, Reason for Liberty, April 19th,2010
10. Stephen Lacey, 2008, U.S State Solar Debate: Will SRECs Create Unhealthy Market Concentration? New Hampshire, United States
11. Stephen Lacey, 2008, U.S State Solar Debate: Will SRECs Create Unhealthy Market Concentration? New Hampshire, United States
12. Pete DuPont, 2009, Time for Inaction on Global Warming, Congress should consider the costs before passing “cap and trade” The Wall Street Journal

Is USA is under recession?

Right since January 2008, a liquidity crunch was experienced by the non-financial companies and individuals and that resulted in job cuts. The average job loss of USA for the eight months was 81,900 job cuts per month by September 2008, during the last four months, it was 483,500 per month. Unemployment rate caused consumer spending to fell by 3.8% in the three quarters of 2008 and in fourth quarter it fell by 36% below the final quarter of 2007.Hence, the National Bureau of Economic Research’s Business Cycle Dating Committee declared that the US economy is in recession since January 2008¹ .

The mainstream economists and media pundits suggest that the cause of a recession is the tight money policies and raised interest rates by the Central government that results in liquidity crunch and causes job cuts, declining consumer spending and hence a recession² . They thus support that stimulating the economy with easy money, governmental loans, huge stimulus packages and lowering interest rates may help the economy in bringing the boom again. The idea suggests that the Market cycles of Boom and Burst originates from the central bank action of expanding the money flow in the market and contracting it. They suggest that proper stimulus packages and government spending over the common welfare programs can easily sooth the situation by allowing more currency to float in the market. Plus, they suggest that such common welfare spending also help in improving the life of standards of common populace.

Failure of Obama’s Stimulus Packages

The idea of mainstream economists is absolutely flawed and this can be easily seen with the failure of the economic stimulus given by the Bush government and supported by the new government of Obama.

It should be clear that a Burst or a recession occurs because there was a boom in market. A boom obviously is the period when an economic sector is unnecessarily provided easy loans, higher profits and more support by the authorities and central government to cause high rise in prices that creates a false demand in the market and causes inflation. That is, the downturn, or the depression or the recession is exactly because of the Central bank, not because it started tightening the financial sources, rather it is because of malinvestment initiated by previously created credit resulting from central bank³ . Mainstream economists also suggest that the market will recover and the prices will inflate again if further easy money is provided through government spending, ridiculously huge stimulus packages and other similar tactics. They believe that by doing so, the stock market will again start rising high. Yet, with all economic stimulus provided, stocks as a broad group are down since last ten years⁴ . That is, economic stimulus and credit policies of Central bank failed since last 10 years.

It is also important to understand the reason of liquidity crunch. A liquidity crunch occurs only when the present amount of money in the market, which is nothing but a means of exchange, is malinvested in those sectors that are facing false demand or boom. Since the money was malinvested in supplying the false demand, it gets trapped. Lenders don’t get their loan back and they suffer liquidity crunch. Thus, the reason of a recession is the easy credit policies by the government and central bank that causes Boom in the market. When the wrong policies of the government and central bank fail, the market suffers recession.

Recession is not the problem, it is the cure of the problems of Malinvestment

Thus, recession can be defined as a cure to the ill-policies of government and central bank that caused boom in certain sectors such as housing market. Because of that boom, easy credit policies, subsidies, easy lending and many other government and central bank caused factors, the prices soars to extreme high and causes inflation and money gets trapped in malinvestment. As the recession acts as a cure to this situation of extreme falsehood, it starts decreasing the extent of false demand and tries to bring the market to its actual true situation. The prices start declining and the economy starts recuperating from the illness of false heights.

Since recession itself is the cure of problems of malinvestment that were caused by the government and central bank’s ill easy money and credit policies, it cannot be cured by further stimulus. The stimulus will only sustain the recession for longer periods until all the malinvestment is not neutralised and the economy comes in a situation to achieve sustainable growth⁵ . The idea can also be substantiated with the expectations of Housing economists who expect that over the next 10 or 20 years, the prices in realty sector may start rising again on an average, but that rise won’t be as much as the average rise was during the past decade⁶ . Obviously, because of easy money and mislead credit policies caused a boom in housing market and created a false demand that consequently resulted in unsustainable boom. As a neutralising phenomenon, the market forces caused liquidity crunch to cure the malinvestment. Until the malinvestment will not neutralise, market will not gain sustainable growth. Stimulus package can only delay the time for achieving the sustainable growth. The stimulus also failed to provide any help in improving the job market, the unemployment rate is still 9.7% in the month of May 2010⁷ , while it was 6.9% in 2008⁸ .
Now with the problems of liquidity crunch still persisting, even the retirees are looking forward to find jobs⁹ . The situation shows that expensive stimulus may also push US towards the same fate that the Greece government and public are suffering right now.

Robert Lucas supported the idea of Ben Bernanke to reduce the interest rates¹⁰ . Every sane minded person will support the idea. In fact, the government or the central bank should not have the power to decide or dictate the interest rates. Interest rates should be decided by the free market proponents freely as per the time requires and permits. Yet, till how long will the central bank and government let the market enjoy the falsehood of stability on the basis of stimulus, what will happen when the central bank and Obama administration will look forward to take the stimulus back? Only then the market will again step forward towards curing the malinvestment caused by bad credit policies and only after that cure the market will be in a position to attain a sustainable growth.

1. William A. Strauss, 2009, Economic Outlook Symposium: Summary of 2008 results and forecasts for 2009, Chicago Fed Letter
2. John P. Cochran, Austrian Business Cycles, Plucking Models, and Real Business Cycles, Austrian Schollar Conference, Auburn, Alabama
3. John P. Cochran, 2001, Austrian Business Cycles, Plucking Models, and Real Business Cycles, Austrian Schollar Conference, Auburn, Alabama
4. E.S Browning, 2009,After the Collapse, Guarded Hope for ’09, The Wall Street Journal, January 2, 2009
5. John P. Cochran, 2001, Austrian Business Cycles, Plucking Models, and Real Business Cycles, Austrian Schollar Conference, Auburn, Alabama
6. James R. Hagerty, 2008, The Future of Home Prices, The Wall Street Journal, December 2, 2008
7. TradingEconomics, May2010
8. William A. Strauss, 2009, Economic Outlook Symposium: Summary of 2008 results and forecasts for 2009, Chicago Fed Letter
9. Kelly Greene, 2009, There Goes Retirement, The Wall Street Journal, March 1, 2009
10. Robert E Lucas Jr., 2008, Bernanke is the Best Stimulus Right Now, The Wall Street Journal, December 23, 2008

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

UID card to tame Corruption

Unique Identity Card is yet another attempt of the government to assert that socialism, and welfarism actually works, and if it is not working than it is because of the corrupt nature of individuals rather than the corrupt nature of system, government is thus hell bent to prevent any corruption involved in its various welfare programs like National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme, Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, National Rural Health Mission, Bharat Nirman etc.
The government says that it will set up a UID Authority of India that will provide a unique identity for the targeted population of those welfare schemes and hence, the corruption inherited in such schemes may be reduced. That is, government yet again declines the fact that such welfare schemes are basically impotent and impractical while asserting that if government weave yet another security thread against the individual freedom, the corruption may reduce and things may work better. There is a basic problem in such a viewpoint. At present, government issues many of such identity cards that are being used to insure the proper beneficiary of the welfare schemes run by government. Yet, it is very easy to produce “fake credentials” and identity cards such as “Ration card”, voter ID card etc. So, by providing a UID smart card, that will contain a magnetic flash memory chip to secure the true information about the card holder that may not be duplicated without government officers concern, government thinks that corruption will be reduced, that is, its not the government officers, clerks and “babus” who are corrupt, but the public is corrupt, public provide bribes to the government officials to enjoy the benefits of schemes meant for helping the poor, while the poor as they cannot bribe, suffers. That may be true, yet how will the smart UID change the scenario? We already have a smart card for Driving Licenses since many years, which are no less sophisticated and technically sound than a UID, yet it fails to tame any corruption.
To record the biometric information of an individual such as his fingerprints, the shape of his hand bones, pattern of his retina, or voiceprint etc on to the idea can only confirm that the person holding the card is actually the owner of the card or not. That is, the UID is too much “fake-proof” it cannot be easily faked or duplicated. Yet, one can change the identity. The information such UID will hold can be as good as the source of information. Therefore, if the public and individuals are corrupt and if the corruption of Indian public is the soul reason behind the failure of governmental welfare schemes, than UID simply cannot help in removing any corruption and such schemes can never benefit the targeted group of individuals for which they are meant. The government officials entering the data in such “smart card” UID’s can be deceived by wrong information, fake birth certificates, salary or income certificates or they may be simply bribed for to issue fake ID’s that cannot be faked any further.
That is, although government is trying to push the cause of removing corruption with the help of UID, yet the UID’s are simply impotent and incapable to remove or reduce any corruption. UID cannot reduce bribery. Yet government is ready to force Indians to bear the extreme spending of $19 billions for the provision of such identity cards that are simply meant to be a failure in the cause of their issuance. This huge amount of money could have been used to “help the poor” yet the government has decided to invest this money to weave yet another government authority (UIDAI) that will control the identities of individual. Therefore, instead of bribing the local government and municipality officials, now the “corrupt public” of India will bribe the specific central government authority officers working for UIDAI. It will not reduce any corruption overall. Instead of taking the responsibility of the inherited corruption in its own base, government thus is blaming individuals and hence is trying to stage a new pattern of controlling and authorizing. How can we trust the government that after the failure of all its management, this huge spending will make it possible for government to reduce any corruption?

UID card for security reasons

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

Misusage of UID

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

Doctrine of Double Effect

Again, government supporters claim that US forces did not aim to murder those innocents rather those innocents were unavoidably in the region of attack hence they were killed. This is known as Doctrine of Double Effect. It states that, if the injury to the innocent is controllable and proportionate, than only one can attack the culprit without considering the harm to the innocent. One cannot bombard a cricket stadium full of thirty to forty thousand audiences just because one of those audiences is a supposedly high profile terrorist. That is, just in order to encounter one terrorist or tyrant, one cannot jeopardize the life of whole audience of the cricket stadium. At most, one may try to shoot the terrorist with his gun without fearing that his missed shot may kill an innocent. Yet, in case of Iraq invasion or Drone attacks in Afghanistan and Pakistan, the killing of innocents is obviously wayward and absurd. Many more innocents were killed without any proper success of actually killing or punishing the terrorists.
Obviously, all such humanitarian grounds in support of US forces invasion on Iraq or Afghanistan and Pakistan are futile. So, was the issue of nuclear warheads with Iraq a proper reason to invade Iraq, or can it be a proper ground to Invade Iran?
We now know that the intelligence reports that suggested that Saddam’s regime had nuke powers were fake and false, yet the Iran is beyond any doubt a Nuke power. Yet, Iran with Nuclear arms is a very minute matter.
USSR had tens of thousands of nuclear warheads and sophisticated delivery vehicles that were always kept in constant readiness. Yet USSR never threatened or ‘Blackmailed’ USA. How can a minute and much weak nuke Iran be of any threatening consideration to USA? Or How could have been Iraq any threat to USA even if Saddam had nuclear power?
US army also claims that Pakistani warheads are under threat and Al-Qaida may try to control them, hence they say that it is necessary to attack and end the Taliban and Al-Qaida outfits involved in Pakistan. The thing is, it is sincerely not wrong to try to kill the Taliban or Al-Qaida members, but US government has no authority or right to endanger and actually murder the innocents while trying to notch the terrorists.
Furthermore, can government justify the extremely large military budgets for which the common people are being confiscated of their wealth by means of taxation?

Attacks on our own citizens

It is not that a government can only kill the innocents in other countries. Many a times, government does not even flinch away from the possibility of killing its own citizens and that too for their own welfare.
During the Indira Gandhi regime in 1984, when a handful of terrorists lead by Sant Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale occupied the Golden Temple, Indian government ordered attack and firing on the Golden Temple. That act was named as Operation Blue Star that killed Thousands of Innocent people along with Bhindranwale’s supporters. Those innocent people were simple religious people and Indian government actually was supposed to safeguard them. Similarly, many innocents were killed during the formation of Bangladesh by the Pakistani government.
The programmed massacre of Muslims in Gujarat against Narendra Modi’s state Gujarat government after the Godhra attack is yet to be forgotten. The list of fake encounter cases of central and state government police and special task forces keep on increasing month by month and it is all done under the mask of protecting and providing a secure welfare state for the same innocent citizens who are being butchered.
Conclusion: Just like other social welfare policies of government, the war and conflict safety policy of government also fails absurdly and instead of being a welfare state, a government lead state often turns out to be a warfare state, while wars brings no good for any one ever.

“All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.¹ “

The law is supposed to be enforced uniformly, and without any discrimination against the guilty based on their economic and social background.
Yet recently, the Indian Apex Court decided to go against the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
On Monday, the Supreme Court said that the courts should consider the economic status of a murderer before sentencing him to death penalty of life sentence even in cases of crimes falling in the category of “rare of rarest”.
The Bench comprising of Justice P.Sathshivam and H.L Dattu said that poor background of the accused should — along with old age and years spent behind bars while awaiting death sentence — be considered as mitigating factors when courts ponder whether life sentence should be used in an otherwise fit case for death penalty.²
It would be fascinating to know why Supreme Court judges are seeking for the populist issues, is the Supreme legal body of India the Apex Court trying to be the champion of socialism?

Significance of the Supreme Court Statement

Reservation for the Poor in Crime
The Supreme Court believes that socio-economic factors might not dilute guilt, but they may amount to mitigating circumstances. That is, if a girl walking on road is raped and murdered by a rich tycoon, than he is surely guilty and must be punished in the harshest manner, but if the rapist murderer belongs to middle class, than the punishment should not be that harsh, furthermore, if the rapist belongs to lower-middle class, than the punishment must be further “mitigated” and if the rapist is a poor (there is no definite definition of poor), than the punishment can only be for the name-sake. After all, he is poor, he should have reservation to be morally depraved, and he should be having freedom to rape or murder, steal, or rob.
The idea behind this is a morally strong, talented, intelligent person is obviously a criminal to some degrees, on the other hand, a lazy, stupid person, who obviously is poor, is certainly innocent to some degrees. Alternatively, the idea can be, to be rich, hardworking and intelligent is a crime in itself.
Obviously, it is akin to show a green flag for all who consider them poor, to be casual about the moral standards and feel free to commit crimes. It is just like showing the shortcut for the poor to be criminals and make money through mean ways.
Apparently, this trend will increase further crime in cities as now; the poor will get a certain “mitigating” security while committing a crime. The police and law bodies are supposed to deal with “poor criminals” with ease.

Consequences of Such Ridiculous Ruling

As now poor have reservation in committing the crime, they can easily innovate and employ themselves in various crimes. Not only they will feel free to commit robbery, theft, rapes or murders for their benefits, they may be employed by the other “richer” criminals to pursue their benefits. Furthermore, any criminal, if he is rich, can easily deal with some poor and pay him a chunk of money to take the responsibility of the crime. The poor will also feel no harm in taking the responsibility of the crime as that will provide him high money and the Supreme Court has already provided him an assurance that his punishment will be much “mitigated”.
Results will be an obvious increase in crimes, further increase in jail maintenance and police expenses, terrorizing environment for middle class individuals and exploitative situations for the poor individuals. The mafia of government, police, politicians and oligarchic corporatists will enjoy the foolery of Indian public that will appreciate the socialistic thought of Supreme Court and Indian government to give priorities for the poor in committing crime, Nonetheless, the Apex Court ruling have provided an easy money making job for the poor. The poor now doesn’t need to be hardworking, morally strong, intelligent and talented for making his life better, he just need to be morally depraved and ready to commit a crime, or to take the responsibility of any already committed crime.

Trailing the Law further

Indian politicians always remain hungry for any such populism so that they may divide the society in various fragments; cause them to struggle within and than rule over them. Yet this time, the Apex Court of India has taken the route of populism. No politician could have thought such a new sector to be divided in various sects of society. SC has already announced the reservation for the poor eventually the High Court of various states may announce a similar quota for Muslims in crime too and then being a Muslim will also be a mitigating factor for punishment for a crime. Well, terrorism is also a crime, so if a terrorist is poor, SC suggests that he should not be punished severely, if High Court of West Bengal announces similar mitigating quota for Muslims, then if a terrorist is a Muslim, he will also not be punished severely.
Quota for crime based on economical state has been announced, sooner or later politicians will again install some committee’s recommendation, suggesting that Muslims should also get reservation in crime, after all Muslims are predominantly minority, no less than poor. After that, politicians may further divide the criminals among their various castes as SC criminals, ST criminals or OBC criminals, with various “mitigating” degrees that would certainly be prescribed by the Supreme Court bench of judges. Ultimately, government and law authority have started encouraging the crime and producing the criminals.
Conclusion:: Socialism, or the idea altruism, that is, the obligatory immorality of having “pity” on the poor ultimately leads to the destruction of not only the poor but also of the whole social set-up. Whenever the government or central collective law authority takes such altruistic step, irrespective of their good intentions, the results come out to be devastatingly opposite. The recent statement of Supreme Court to discriminate the criminals based on economical class will certainly increase the crime in society and will further cause deterioration. The best way a society can assert uniform justice is by providing free or privatized legal services.³

1. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, United Nations
2. Poverty could mitigate crime, even murder: SC, Times of India
3. Prospects of Private Judicial System in India, RFL

Changing views of Climatologists

Some of the climate scientists have started trying to search out some feasible excuses to suggest why not all their predicted warnings about the apocalyptic changes in environment are proving to be true. Such a recent study suggests that the Earth did not warm up noticeably over the period of last decade even though the greenhouse gases are increasing dramatically because of a new stratospheric phenomenon 10 miles above our heads. The study suggests that somehow, the water vapour in the stratosphere has been decreased. As the water in atmosphere traps heat, lesser water in stratosphere means lesser heat. That is, although greenhouse gases are continually increasing, the atmosphere has changed itself in such a way that there is no global warming and in fact there is lesser heat. The atmosphere thus, has acted for the benefit of humanity.³
Although it is just an excuse, it suggests that now instead of keep issuing the threats of apocalypse every second day, environmentalists and climate scientists need to stress over searching for better excuses to hide out their deceits.

The Growing Glaciers

Despite all hullabaloo of global warming, the glaciers are growing all around the world. How is that possible that IPCC issues an unauthentic report about the disappearance of Himalayan glaciers, while the scientists from other group make a documentary about how the Himalayan glaciers are ever increasing since the last three decades?
Here is a list of 12 glaciers that have not heard the news about Global warming. They are growing and growing fast.⁴
It is a fact that the fake calls of apocalyptic dangers of global warming are not going to pay the socialist set of environmentalists any success. Yet, it would also be wrong to say that climate is not changing, climate is always changing and so do the human beings and other life forms. We evolve with time we change.
Professor Ian Plimer (University of Adelaide) in his book “Heaven an Earth” explains why CO2 cannot be a cause of global warming; here is a transcript of his scientifically recognized book Heaven and Earth.⁵
Despite the 21st century decrease in global temperature, we are perpetually warned of dangerous global warming. Every evening one can see a disturbing documentary over some news channel showing some absurd claims (just like that of IPCC claims of disappearing Himalayan glaciers etc.) all these environmentalists and green activists obviously want us to believe that if we try to live a happy, healthy prosperous life, we will be no better than the devil ready to cause havoc on earth. Obviously, they want the governments to control us and force us to sacrifice ourselves, our progress for the greater cause of saving the environment from the alleged threat of global warming.

Alternative solutions for alleged global warming

In the book Super Freakonomics⁶ the author argues that even if CO2 is causing global warming and if global warming is a real threat, then also it is not necessary that governments all around the world need to enforce draconian laws and cuts in carbon dioxide emission that would cost many trillions of dollars and will force the poor to be poorer. Rather some better geo-engineering solutions can be adopted to keep the earth cool despite the increased concentration of green house gases in the atmosphere.
Just like the present water vapor in the stratosphere can actually cause the globe to cool down irrespective of increased concentration of carbon dioxide, engineers can pump sulphur dioxide in stratosphere by a suspended hose using helium balloons. There can be numerous ways to actually control any global warming if it is occurring at any dangerous rate, but the fact is, since the 21st century, the earth is cooling off.
The environmentalists knows that it would be hard for them to contend at the issue of global warming because the evidences are totally against them and hence they are playing the new trick. Now days, the catastrophe lovers does not shout for Global Warming, rather they call for Climate Change. Climate change is a reality, climate keep changing since ever and forever. Mainstream economists, along with scientists and engineers, are increasingly joining in the climate change debate as technical experts, with the prospects of lucrative funding ultimately paid for through coercive taxation. The evolution of the climate change debate mirrors the almost universal support of economists as expert technical advisers for central banking and Keynesian policy prescriptions such as Cap and Trade policy etc.
Conclusion: Global warming is gradually proving out to be another fake call of the socialists just to dishearten the freedom loving individuals and to force common public to suffer under governmental duress and keep thinking that freedom is sinful and progress is evil. We need to save ourselves from such unholy misguiding tirade of socialist environmentalists, economists and media persons who are trying to baffle public to enforce governmental control over their life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.
Update: A good article against Global warming fraud in “Open” : http://www.openthemagazine.com/article/international/the-hottest-hoax-in-the-world

Indian Environment Minister Jairam ramesh says:: There is a fine line between climate science and climate evangelism. I am all for climate science but not for climate evangelism. I think people misused the IPCC report,” Ramesh told a news channel here.
Stressing that the IPCC’s weakness was that it didn’t do original research and derives assessments from published literature, the minister announced a climate change panel for India. Economic Times

1. Times of India IPCC retracts 2035 alarm on Himalayan glacier melt
2. The Telegraph After Climategate, Pachaurigate and Glaciergate: Amazongate
3. NPR News ,Atmospheric Dry Spell Eases Global Warming
4. 12 more glaciers that haven’t heard the news about global warming, Turns out the IPCC’s chicken little story that all the Himalayan glaciers are melting is just another exaggeration. Or fraud. Take your choice. You know, like the stats coming out of East Anglia CRU. And its claim that Antarctica is melting. And that Greenland’s ice cap is melting. And that sea levels are rising. And that the polar bears are dying. Fact is, some glaciers are retreating, but many others around the world are growing.
5. Professor Ian Plimer is Professor of Mining Geology at University of Adelaide and Emeritus Professor of Earth Sciences at University of Melbourne
6. SuperFreakonomics,Global Cooling, Patriotic Prostitutes, and Why Suicide Bombers Should Buy Life Insurance

What is a Right!

The term “Rights” is a moral political term, Right is defined as a definite course of behavior of Individuals in a society that is sanctioned, proper, allowed, a privilege to be respected by all others and if anybody violates any individual “Right”, he is wrong, immoral, unsanctioned, evil, a criminal.
Now, if education is a right, then anybody arguing that Education cannot be free, education cannot be a privilege, education cannot be a right is obviously a criminal, an evil-doer, and that creates a certain anomaly, a serious contradiction with the term Right. As per the viewpoint of Individual sovereignty and free citizenship in a society, our only rights are the rights to life, liberty, property and pursuit of happiness. That is, we are not born with a right to a trip to visit Taj Mahal, or a dinner at Hotel Taj or a cosmetic surgery or a degree in aeronautical engineering. Why cannot we have such rights? We cannot have such rights because the Individual Rights in a free society does not impose any obligation on other people except that of a negative obligation to leave the individual alone, to not to interfere with his life, to not to exploit his Rights. The Individual Rights guarantees you the freedom and chance to work and put efforts for what you want, rights are not to be given to you without any effort by somebody else. That is, you do not have a right to be fed, to be clothed, or to have a house, a car, an AC etc. Although, you have proper right to work and earn your living but you also have complete freedom to use your earning according to your wishes, you have a right to pursue your happiness. More clearly saying, one has the right to act and to keep the fruits of his actions, to produce and to keep his products or to trade them to others if he prefers. However, he has no right over the actions and products of others, except on the terms of which they voluntarily agree. That is, we all have a right to have a mutually beneficial deal voluntarily. Similarly, the right to the pursuit of happiness guarantees you the freedom and right to act to pursue your happiness and to be happy, to keep the results of your actions. It does not guarantee that other people will make you happy or will try to make you happy. If one’s desire for something imposes a duty on others to satisfy his desire, then the others have no choice in their life. They are merely slaves. One’s right to happiness at the expense of others means that the others become rightless slaves. Your right for anything at other’s expense means that the others become your rightless slaves.

The Immorality of Current Politicians

Just in order to gain a vote bank, politicians distorts the meaning of right. They say that you are entitled for something because it exists and you want it. You do not need to work for it or earn it; government should provide it to you. The question arises, from where will the government get it? What will the government do to the free individuals and their individual rights to make it possible to shower free gifts, free lunch, free education, free health-care etc on you?
Let us assume that tomorrow, government and politicians assert that you are born with a moral right to hair-care and that government will benevolently provide free hair-care services for all those who want it. Haircuts and shaving would be free. Some people will show up everyday for a new hair-style, eye-brow setting, beard and mustache setting, government will keep showering the governmental hair-saloons with more and more governmental funds collected by taxing middle class citizens. Every bald man would love to come to the governmental hair-saloon to have a hair seeding and implantation. Nobody would be bald and there will be as many hair styles as there are citizens in India. Government will govern the profession of barbers and they will make huge incomes, every second person would like to be a barber, there would be competitive examinations for Indian Barbers Services (IBS). The government will pay for all expenses. Obviously, there will be government schools and colleges providing specific training, certificates and degrees for professional barbers. Government will install a huge administration for the maintenance of the hair-cut sector. The dishonest barbers will make huge profits and so, will the honest one. They will work and spend like mad, trying to satisfy every second person’s desire regarding his hairs, which certainly can be a millions worth specific hair care and services. The budget will start going out of control, government will suffer the pressure to provide enough budgets to maintain the proper services for hair-care. Corruption will rise , soon government will start providing directives regarding hair cuts to control the budget, government will limit the number of barbers, the time spent for one hair-cut, government will start licensing an permitting only certain type of hair cuts, taking away the individual’s liberty regarding his own hairs. Government will start limiting the number of hairs a barber can split, the number of razors a barber can buy. There will be inspectors to check the corruption in governmental barber shops, there will be a new department just to keep records of barbers in a definite constituency and the profession of barbers will be thoroughly red-taped.
It is the case of education. Government controls the education sector and tries to establish education as a right. Obviously, government fails to provide any sort of education to the masses and whatever education it provides always remains way below the required standards. Also, government doesn’t produce the required resources for the provision of free lunch and free education, so who will pay for all that?
The rich people are very few in India and even if government snatches away all the property of the top 100 richest families of India, it cannot sustain the expenditures required for free education. So, who will pay for that? It is us, we poor and middle class people who pay as slave for the government’s immoral desire to provide free education through the taxation system. By stressing free education as a right, government makes all Indians as the slaves who are obligated to pay for the governmental education program without questioning anything about it. By befooling us by the term free education as an individual’s right, government robs us of our very basic right to earn and to hold the fruits and results of our work and efforts. Government taxes us and takes away our hard earned money an in return; we get nothing but a highly imperfect education system. There are no free lunches, but there are lunches being paid for by somebody else.
Conclusion: Rights does not confirm anything freely available for anybody at the expense of others. By terming education, or health-care, or free lunch as individual’s right, politicians try to enslave the public and rob them of their very basic individual right of life, liberty, property and pursuit of happiness. In a free society there can be only the right to live freely, to work and earn freely, to enjoy the produced an earned property freely and to pursue one’s happiness by furthering his efforts and results of his efforts freely. Other than the man’s free will, he has to earn everything honestly in a free society, no other one, not even government is obligated to feed, or cloth or educate him freely.

Failure of Government

Often government is considered as obligatory for the working of a society, yet, the more perfect and free a society is, the less it needs a government to govern it. A free society obviously governs itself and provides enough free domains for each individual the right to self govern. All the specific laws of any society or country are basically the very natural laws based on the rational mutual self-interests of the individuals involved. All the laws of trades and commerce with respect to intercourse of individuals or different groups of individuals are based on laws of mutual and reciprocal self-interest. Individuals or groups of free individuals are tend to follow such natural laws of peace and prosperity not because of fear of any formal government, but because of the inherent mutual benefits and profits they are seeking for.
It is quite obvious that if a society is left free, and each individual of that society is provided complete freedom to pursue his progress and happiness, there seldom will be a need of any governing authority. Yet how often is the case where various operations of government destroy the natural peace and mutually beneficial state of free society?
If one look back at the riots and tumults that happened in India at various times, he will find out that government did not want any of those riots, but the government itself was the generating cause. Instead of consolidating the society, government divided it; it deprived the society of its natural cohesion and engendered discontent and disorder. That is, the government itself became the cause of chaos. The riots of 1948 were not because of any misgivings between Hindus or Muslims, both of them were living peacefully in India since hundreds of years, those riots occurred because of governmental want of divide and rule. The bloody conflict of Kashmir is not because of some Islamic group of militants, it is because of the want of two governments to control a peace of land and rule over the people living there. The militants of Punjab demanding for Khalistan were not inspired for any better cause of Sikh community, rather they were looking for making another coercive government, the 1984 riots against Sikh’s again were not because of any sect of society, but they happened because of the impulsiveness of government. The emergency period and all the killings in that period again were because of the government. The opening of Babri Mosque gate was obviously a political step of the government that infuriated the society and became the cause of Hindu-Muslim riots, Babri mosque was demolished because of aspirations of government, and whole society suffered the consequential riots and killings. The burning of Godhra train was again a consequence of the division that the government and the aspirants of government created and that became the cause to further Gujarat violence.
Overall, there seldom occurs a riot or act of violence within the free individuals of a free society, but whenever a self-imposed government intends to interfere within the society; it becomes the cause of riots, tumults, destruction and violence.
The various acts of government, tax-impositions, caste reservations, reservations based on religion etc ultimately divides the society and creates an environment of dissatisfaction an frustration that ultimately leads to violence in various forms and to avoid that, government again tend to divide the society further and deprive it of the natural strength and mutually beneficial state a free and self-governed society may achieve. The recent case of Telangana struggle is also nothing but an example of governmental act going sour, and the very infamous Mumbai riots against the people of UP and Bihar are also nothing but the ill-effects of governmental ill-policies and the war-mongering character of the political aspirants.
What good a farmer ploughing his land will find in leaving his peaceful pursuit of prosperity and happiness and going for a war against a farmer of other religion, state or country ploughing his own land? Why will a manufacturer of a certain religion, caste, state or country wager a war against the manufacturer of another religion, caste, state or country? Does any such war, riot or struggle adds up any acre of land for that farmer, does it increases the productive capacity of the manufacturer, does such wars and tumults and bloodshed increases the venturing probabilities of any entrepreneur or enterprise? No, it adds nothing for any common man, it do no good for any common folk, rather, all such wars, riots, strikes and tumults deprives them of their peaceful pursuit of happiness, their basic right of freedom and security. Though this reasoning is good for a society or a nation and its people to avoid and hate wars, and try to maintain love an peace to pursue their progress, yet it is not so for the government. A society earns nothing from divisions, wars, strikes, tumults and riots, yet a government earns a lot. War is the game of government and the nation and public are the pawns.
In spite of all these depressing and destructive acts of government, the individuals keep striving for their progress, for their living. No matter how high inflation may go, the poor man seeks out a way to feed his children. It is obviously a wonderful attribute of the society that in spite of being ruined and ruled by the government keeps providing enough aid for the individual constituent to survive the harshness and inhumanity of the government.

Society in every state is a blessing, but government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil, in its worst state, an intolerable one. Thomas Paine

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

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

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

The right to Live

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

Current norms of Right to Life

India is considered as a free nation, a land of free individuals.
Freedom is so little understood in this “land of the free” that it is often confused with its opposite. The current example of Shanbaug is evidence to that prevailing confusion. The Apex court of India that negated the pleas of termination of pregnancy of mentally retarded girl resulting from a rape at Nari Niketan in Chandigarh and a similar plea from a Mumbai couple for terminating a diseased fetus³ , raised questions against the plea of Shanbaug to terminate her own life. The objection was obsolete and rhetoric. ‘‘Do you mean right to life includes right to die?’’
In no way a man’s right to dignified life can be alienated from his proper right to die. If the society or legal codes of society rule over the individual moral code of life, than it means that the individual is not free and certainly have no sovereignty, rather the individual is mere a subject of legal socio-political norms of collective society.
The Apex Court of India now has accepted the plea of Shanbaug to be debated at Supreme Court. The question is why should the Apex Court be considered as more powerful than the individual’s own right to self-sovereignty and Freedom?
Most probably, Apex-court may dictate a directive to discuss the provision of certain amendment in IPC to include the provision of Physician Assisted Suicide; they may subject it to a public constitutional debate. The Supreme Court may totally reject the plea to voluntary suicide too. Yet, if Apex Court accepts Shanbaug’s plea, as doctors have told her there is no chance of any improvement in her state, will it be any positive step towards Individual Freedom? Will the Supreme Court of Free India ever realize that Indians are not a subject of rule of Supreme Court or national government rather they are entitled to individual sovereignty and a dignified life?
To keep a will of a person to end his life under the decision of Supreme Court or under the will of physicians to decide whether to let a man die or not is a direct breach of “right to live with Dignity” confirmed by the Article 21 of Indian Constitution. By force-feeding Shanbaug and treating her, as a vegetative entity for the purpose of medical tests and experiments is not only unjust, it is highly inhuman. She is not a mouse or cat dependent on the will of physicians.
In case, if Apex Court agrees to let Shanbaug end her life “if Doctors permits her to perform Euthanasia”, than again it would be a breach of individual freedom of Shanbaug and her right to her life. She is certainly not a slave to those doctors whom Supreme Court may consider as the decision maker of who should live or who should be allowed to die.
Physician Assisted Suicide (PAS) is a mendacious issue; it confirms that the physician is principle and not the assistant, that it is the physician who will make the decision whether the person should be allowed to die. An assistant generally means the sub-ordinate that helps one in achieving his decision, but in case of PAS, the physician himself becomes the decision maker, the person superior to the patient. PAS simply empowers Doctors and not the individual to make a free decision for their own life. As a matter of fact, PAS is breach of right to life.

Economical Aspects of Euthanasia

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

Conclusion:

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

1. SC admits sexual assault victim’s plea to end her life, Times of India
2. Next Friend— a legal term used for a person speaking on behalf of someone who is incapacitated
3. The Issue of twisted Abortions, Reason for Liberty

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

Mahatma Gandhi on Wars

As Obama reverberates himself as being a disciple of Gandhi, we should look at Gandhi’s attitude about Wars. Gandhi ji was obviously against staging any war, he was a supporter of Non-violence, yet there was not a war that he did not support. He supported all the wars in his life time. The apostle of peace Gandhi himself supported British in the Boer War, Zulu War, WW1, WW2.
In 1914, Gandhi himself joined British army as volunteer for the Ambulance corp. to serve the injured Indian and British soldiers at Zulu war. One may understand his compassion for the suffering of soldiers; he was not taking part in active violence.
Yet, in April 1918, Mahatma Gandhi urged Indian youth to take part in British army as war recruits. Perhaps to show his support for the Empire and help his case for India’s independence, he deemed it necessary to take part in the war.² He might have considered it as pacifist way of non-violence, that is rather than fighting against the British rulers, let the Indian youth fight for the British Empire and in turn demand or beg independence as reward. It should be mentioned that while he openly demanded Indian youths to help British army in World War1, he felt aghast when some Indian youth tried to protest against British brutality on Indians “violently” and because of that, he took his Non-cooperation movement back in 1922.³ Obviously, Gandhi was strictly against any form of violence against British Empire by Indians, yet he was ready to recruit Indian youths to kill enemies of British empire, including the Zulu protesters. For Gandhi, the most necessary peace was, peace of Indians against British Empire.
For Gandhi, the pacifist form of war in order to establish and sustain peace was non-violent, hence although he urged Indian youths to fight and die in battle grounds for British Empire, he also maintained that Indian youths must not fight against British rulers in India, because that would be direct violence, and that was not acceptable to Gandhi. Why was Gandhi ready to recruit Indian youths to “co-operate” with British Army in Imperial wars, while he himself was launching the Non-cooperation movement?
During the WW2 again, Pacifist Mahatma Gandhi again favored offering Indian moral support to British army in 1939 when Nazi Germany invaded Poland. Obviously, it seemed right decision as Nazi Germany obviously was violent. Yet, when other leaders of India objected Indian youth’s inclusion in British war, Gandhi declared that India could not be party to a war ostensibly being fought for democratic freedom, while that freedom was denied to India itself. As the war progressed, Gandhi drafted a resolution demanding for British to Quit India. Obviously, his pacifist support for British army during the wars became the saddle of deal for Indian independence. Gandhi realized that British Empire would be exhausted after the two consecutive world wars and hence he declared that even if some Indians directly fight violently against British Empire, he would not take his Quit India demand this time as he did after the World War1.⁴
He knew it was the ripe time to force exhausted British Empire to Quit India.
Thus, it can be seen that if Obama mentions that he took his inspirations from Mahatma Gandhi, he does not sound hypocrite or wrong.

Changing standards of Noble peace prize community

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

“Mr. Gandhi told his prayer meeting to-night that, though he had always opposed all warfare, if there was no other way of securing justice from Pakistan and if Pakistan persistently refused to see its proved error and continued to minimise it, the Indian Union Government would have to go to war against it. No one wanted war, but he could never advise anyone to put up with injustice. If all Hindus were annihilated for a just cause, he would not mind. If there was war, the Hindus in Pakistan could not be fifth columnists. If their loyalty lay not with Pakistan, they should leave it. Similarly Muslims whose loyalty was with Pakistan should not stay in the Indian Union.”⁵

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

How Gandhian Idea would help Afghanistan Situation?

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

Libertarian Idea on Pre-emptive Wars

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

1. Obama :War has a role in Peace, Times of India
2. Role of Mahatma Gandhi in WW1, Wikipedia
3. Mahatma Gandhi, Non-cooperation, Wikipedia
4. World War2 and Quit India, Wikipedia
5. Mahatma Gandhi, the Missing Laureate, Nobleprize.org

1. Education For All, Reason For Liberty
2. Reason of Price Rise and Consequences of Price Control, Reason For Liberty

The first time we see a major philosopher discuss social contract is in one of Plato’s Socratic dialogues, Crito, where he states that by staying within the Athenian state, one is necessarily agreeing to abide by the laws of it. Since the society has made what he has possible (not in the sense that he couldn’t acquire it otherwise, but that he didn’t), then when the legal system says that a person ought to be thrown in jail, the person has not the right of objection. By staying within the tenured land of the society, you have implicitly agreed to abide by whatever justice the arbiter of the state handed down to you.

John Locke and Hobbes are usually given credit for their work on social contract theory and the state of nature as if they created the concepts. Their theories, as well as Rousseau’s, pretty much propagate the same sort of idea with minor variations.

All of the theories of Social Contract have one thing in common. Since it is the idea of a “contract” is that both parties mutually agree upon it(otherwise what is the difference between slavery and free contract) it presupposes the notion that we have all consented to live under these rules? Is this true?

The most basic argument is that under a certain government, especially a constitutional one, such contract was agreed to only by a certain group of men at a certain time. Not all of those living on the land in 1776 in America expressed that they were willing to live under such law. Certainly, no one alive today had anything to do with it. If you accepted this doctrine of generational consignment, it may be said, that means it is morally or legally acceptable to sell your daughter into slavery. Similarly not all those living on the land of India in 1947 gave their explicit consent to live under such a law, most of the time the respective kings gave their citizens to the government of India(which begs the questions, did Indians really get freedom or their ownership was merely handed over to the respective Kings by the British, who then handed them to then newly formed Government of India).
Unfortunately, this in and of itself doesn’t hold water. You are allowed to get up and leave at any time regardless of whether all other land also is previously owned and tenured, because in staying you are agreeing to that state’s laws instead of any other. Even if there aren’t other options—and I believe there are, such as living in Antarctica, or things like the SeaSteading project¹-that isn’t the state’s fault either. That man must make cost/benefit decisions under which dominion they live under, that there is a small supply of different choices currently, is a fact that cannot be evaded, wished away, called unfair, or used as a logical or social argument under any pretext of a world in which we have scarcity and economic law.

I have found only one argument that is a defense against not abiding by the laws of the State. What we refer to as social contract makes the self-affirming supposition that we have consented to such agreement. Something being consensual can only exist if there is, was or will ever be a choice. This isn’t to say that a constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land so we must abide by it; but that any constitution, being a legally binding contract between the state and society, can only be considered valid if it was consensual.

There are two essential components of a contract: the offer and the agreement. An offer you can’t refuse isn’t really an offer, but the fact of the matter is, man is able to permit something only if he is also able to deny it. That is, since the contract says “we will give you justice and security in turn for you paying taxes and abiding by our regulations,” if we cannot refuse to sign, then there is no ways the word consent or contract can be used. If we aren’t allowed to say, “No, thank you. I promise that I will not take a dime from the State, use any of the services provided, will take the security risk and will not aggress against any of its citizens as long as the State does not agrees against me.” then there is no consent involved, and it makes this argument tantamount to slavery. The ability to refuse to acknowledge the contract wasn’t a possibility at the start of any nation and it isn’t now.

A correlation to be drawn to bring it down to its most basic form: if I am raped, does it matter that if was in the wrong place at the wrong time and if could have not been in that place, or may have gotten up and walked away if I had the means, mean that I consented to the rape?

So, what if we own the land we stay on, and never leave it because that is violating the State’s property? Does this work? No, because they claim domain over all lands, even if they don’t in any sense of the word “own” it—they do not have exclusive rights to use and dispose of it as they would. So, even if land tenure were an argument, it brings us back to the original negation. You cannot choose to not sign. Henceforth, it is not a contract.

Even if you chose to live outside of society in a plot that had been previously untouched or else did have a deed transfer, you are still subject to the laws of such a society because it is inside the eminent domain of the State², and it means these people must admit they do not own their land and have to act as such because of tenure; or that expropriation right(of eminent domain) exists which is negative to social contract theory.

If people say they don’t own their own land, then they don’t own their labor because it is exists either through homesteading or contractual agreement (which are the only ways property can be acquired; mixing your labor into something unclaimed in nature or receive it through voluntary means); and if they don’t own their labor, then how much do they own their body? If people don’t own their own labor, do not have exclusive rights to use and dispose of their own body (and mind) than not only have they not made a contractual agreement, but they are incapable of doing so.

If nobody is able to consent or not consent, then this means the State enforces its contract through an agreement with itself because it derives the power to enforce such law through its own entity, which obliterates any notion of “social contract” ever construed, as far as I know.

The question of breach of contract also arises. If we did have a contract-and we don’t in any true sense of the word—then if one party does not or improperly performs its legal obligation under such contract, there is a breach which voids it as long as the aggrieved party can support his claim that the non-performing party did not perform. Even without a constitution, the whole point of social contract is for security. If we look at just this basic function, how secure do you feel? Worse yet, not only are you not secure from third parties, but also the very entity which you entered into this legally binding agreement with is the main aggressor and aggravator.
Since the State has a monopoly on the legal system, when you bring to courts the fact that you have been injured, you are asking the party which breach the contract to decide whether they have done so, making the agreement null and void; and that they must pay you reparations and admit that you do not have to live by the laws they’ve created any longer. This is as if I agreed to pay you $10 to wash my car, you wash it, and I do not pay. Now, in order for you to receive justice, you have to come to me to decide whether I have violated the terms. If I were going to decide in your favor, I would have just paid you the $10 to begin with.

We never agreed or had the chance to agree to a contract; now that we “have one” we have no way of reconciling terms if it is breached. This cannot be. If we did have any contract at all, it would certainly be an antisocial one.

(As a side note, in current times, the argument that you can just leave the State to go to another holds no water any longer. You must get your nation’s government to give you permission to leave, and then another’s permission to come. This is not “free to get up and walk away.” It is free to ask permission from those who do have a choice.)

1. Seasteading Institute – http://seasteading.org/
2. Eminent Domain is the inherent power of the state to seize a citizen’s private property, expropriate property, or seize a citizen’s rights in property with due monetary compensation, but without the owner’s consent. Eminent Domain Wikipedia

Solving the Shortage of Grains

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

Issue of Oil Shortage because of Corrupt Oil Barons

The same principles of free market will also tackle any unwanted situation in the market of crude oil and petroleum or any storable commodity.
In the previous post, while discussing the Market Anarchy² , one of my friends raised the issue of Oil Barons, asking what will happen to free market if the Arab Oil Barons tries to control the market because of their influence on oil production.
Let us assume that all Oil Barons of Arab makes a union and tries to control the free market by imposing an artificial scarcity of crude oil (although this is impossible because reducing supply of oil will reduce all income of those oil barons as they have no other means of profitable production).
The speculators of free market will certainly foresee the future shortage of oil and will maintain their oil storage to make higher profits. That will obviously increase the current prices of available oil and hence will introduce the thriftiness in consumers, making them more able to sustain the period of oil shortage. Consequently, it will reduce the chances of unexpected increase in price of oil at extreme periods too.
On the other hand, Indian free market will also tend to increase its oil production to make higher profits. In addition, profit motive will tend the oil producers of other nations (like USA or Russia etc) to sell their oil to the Indian market. That will obviously tend to spread the scarcity of oil through out the world and hence will assuage the problems of Indian market. Hence, although the economy of India and actually whole world, will suffer a comparable loss but that would not be of any considerable degrees. On the other hand, Oil Barons depend only on oil production, their loss at not selling the oil will be huge and directly pointed towards them, and that will break their union.
Conclusion: A free market inadvertently safeguards itself against any sort of scarcity of any commodity by means of the profit motivated market forces. As speculators guard the market and hence the well-being of consumers as true and honest soldiers (as their vested profits and interests are strictly attached with the consumers), the free market necessarily remains free of any discrepancy in the prices of any commodity.
Even the administrators of mixed economy have realizes the power of forces of free market that is why Indian government issued allowance of speculations over wheat few months ago³. Certainly, it is a positive step towards the Free Market.

1. Cultivating Famine, Reason for Liberty
2. Issue of Oil Barons, The Market Anarchy
3. Ban of wheat futures lifted, Speculation allowed, Economic Times

The Socialized Medicines

The idea behind socialized medicines is the forced economic equality³ of citizens, i.e. no matter you have earned money, you cannot have any better medical treatment than the lazy person who never thought of earning and saving for his medical security. Thus, the socialization of medicines is not only the abolition of causality of individual efforts and his earnings; it is abolition of the cost in spending of income.
As visits to doctor are free to individuals while the taxpayers collectively pays for them in socialized system, each individual realizes the benefit of his visit to the doctor, while millions of taxpayers pays for the visit. Obviously it is an insignificant amount, thus every individual is encouraged to take advantage of the system without considering the wastage. As a result, the number of visits to doctor increases abruptly. The absence of cost to the individual patient results in an enormous increase in the medical tests, hospitalization and surgeries performed, most of which remains unnecessary and that adds to the cost of system furthermore, also the system requires a huge bureaucracy to administer it and that further increases corruption and the cost to the collective. The result of the system is simply to raise the fees of doctors and medical facilities and to create scarcity of hospital beds and doctor’s time. The redundant medical tests and surgeries performed often delays the meeting of genuine needs of the patients and many a times, it becomes impossible for the patient to actually get the required treatment.
To solve out these problems, government thoroughly bureaucratize the medical field by controlling the doctors’ wages and price control of medicines, government also restricts doctors from practicing freely. Ultimately, the profession of doctor and medicines becomes unattractive and unprofitable and the talented individuals prefer not to opt for it. That further creates scarcity of efficient doctors. As government has no rational way to determine the necessary treatment in any individual case, the doctors starts denying the necessary treatment for the people, thus increases corruption.

Socialized System against Advancement of Technology

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

Increase in Bureaucratic Corruption

As the Free Health Care System results in enormously increased demand of services and scarcity of doctors, medical facilities, hospital beds and resources, the medical sector becomes the free zone for political and bureaucratic corruption. As politicians and government official realizes that government cannot satisfy the demand of citizens, they start taking advantages of the situation through bribery, frauds and corruption. In order to contain the spending on collective medical care of whole populace and to increase the profits of the corrupt politicians, bureaucrats and government officials’ including doctors, government begins denying and prohibiting necessary medical procedures too to the common person. Not only the medical advancement is reduced and opposed by government, it also starts denying medical services to those citizens whom the government considers as only marginally valuable to the nation, such as infants or aged. As aged and infants does not pay any additional tax to the government budget, while their necessary demands of medical are high, they suffer neglect. On the other hand, government keep increasing taxes on the taxpayer citizens on the name of trying to provide necessary treatments for the poor, old and infants. Thus, the same socialized medical system that begins with an aim to provide funds for medical care of poor, infants and aged, turns out to be a sacrificial citadel for them.⁴
To believe that there can be something like “free lunch” is a great mistake. If government promises for free lunch, no one should be surprised to find out that it increases malnutrition and starvation. He may find himself on short rations of government in order to have fund for those whom the government considers more valuable than him on social and political priority. Thus, such socialized free-health care, or free-education for all, or free-lunch, food, water for the poor and underprivileged often proves to be phoney, corrupt and inefficient. Yet, government keep propagandizing such issues and programs just in order to keep its hold on political power and vote bank of the masses. Ultimately, all this increases extreme corruption in the system, and poverty and scarcity of resources and services for the masses. In order to reduce and ultimately remove the problem of corruption in India, Indians need to realize the irrationality of collectivism and to abolish it instead of abolishing the causation and cost of individual earning and living.
Huge number of such socialized programs including Universal Medical Care, Education for All, food for all, minimum wage rates and employment for all run by government in India are the actual cause of extreme corruption that we Indian suffers.
The POTUS Barack Obama and his Democrat comrades are also trying to push such forced economic equality on US citizens by means of luring the citizens and propagandizing such socialized programmes of Universal Health Care, Public education for all and many other such programmes. Obviously, their motive is to gain political mileage and promising vote bank to maintain their ruling power. Yet, the American citizens should realize the irrationality of such collective systems and prefer not to be the victim.

1. A discussion on Indian Health Care Problems, Indian Health Care–an Overview
2. The Myth of Complete Education, Education for All
3. Egalitarianism creates Forced Economic Inequality amongst the citizens that proves to be more drastic than the natural inequality of free system, Freedom Versus Egalitarianism
4. Socialized system turns to Common Minimum Program, The story of Socialism, Public Welfare and Brain Drain

Burden on Consumers

In an economic system as long as only certain means of productions are controlled by the government or municipalities, the nature of market economy determining economic activities remains unchanged. The Government owned sectors and ventures must fit into the market mechanism of market economics while buying raw material, equipments, labour, and as sellers of goods and services. They are subject to laws of market, as they need to attempt for profits, at least to avoid losses.¹ When government intervenes to eliminate this dependence on market by covering the losses of such enterprises with subsidies or bailouts out of public funds the losses shifts to somewhere else and subsidies are raised by collecting confiscatory taxes. However, the burden of the taxes affects the citizens, not the government collecting the tax.
In a free market, where the market laws either purges out the failed enterprises incurring losses and replace them with other enterprisers to provide better products and services, or force those enterprises to improve their working, production and management, the problem solves out by itself as the malinvestment in enterprises incurring losses gets a reality check. Yet, because of government interventions in mixed economy, such check is impossible as the government keeps promoting the failure by punishing the citizens, burdening them with superfluous taxes and wasting thus collected wealth in failed or meant to be failed enterprises and services in the form of bailouts and subsidies.² In absence of check, these enterprises, instead of improving and curing themselves, keep fomenting further and causes further burden. The government interventions at one hand, supports malinvestment in the failed or mismanaged enterprises, on the other hand, government punishes the profitable private enterprises by further cutting out their profits by means of corporate taxes. As the profits of private enterprises reduces, their rate of progress and production also decreases, causing retardation in progress of citizens.

Poverty and Unemployment

It is a fact that the only way to reduce poverty is to increase the productivity of individuals.³ However, the interventionists’ suggests that government can raise the standard of living of the common man partly at the expense of entrepreneurs and capitalist, and partly at expense of common citizens. They suggests restrictions on profits and equalization of incomes and fortunes by reservations,⁴ confiscatory taxations,⁵ lowering of interest rates by fiat money policy and credit expansion and raising the standards of living of workers by the enforcement of minimum wage rates.
As subsidies and taxation decreases the productivity of workers and the system, the results of interventions comes out exactly opposite to what government intends to achieve so. Fiat currency brings upon cycles of inflation and the arbitrary lowering of interest rates, credit expansion results in depression, and the random minimum wage rates restrictions than creates mass unemployment.
In a free market system, the wage rates are fixed by the interaction of demand and supply, at a level at which all those willing to work can finally find a job, and thus the unemployment remains temporary only as there remains a continuous tendency of the free market to remove the unemployment. However, with government interventions in form of fixed minimum wage rates, things changes. When the government fixes wage rates above the normal rate that could have been fixed by the free market, the potential of market to provide employment decreases that causes unemployment. Furthermore, as the wage rates are fixed in general, those, who looses their job because of fixed minimum wage rates, fails to find another job and their unemployment is prolonged. Thus at one hand, government intervention may increase the income of some workers, at other hand, it forces some other workers to suffer unemployment and hence no income. Also, because of minimum wage rate laws and thus produced unemployment, productivity of enterprises reduces to great extent causing further poverty and unemployment.

Price Control and decrease in productivity

Interventionists further support lavish spending on behalf of government; they support arbitrary low prices for consumers’ goods and high prices for agricultural products. The lavish public spending by government further excruciates the situations. If the government provides funds required by taxing the citizens or by borrowing from the public, it abolishes on one hand as many jobs as it creates on the other, most of the times such jobs created prove to be unproductive and hence are similar to malinvestment and wastage of resources. If commercial banks finance the government spending, it means credit expansion and inflation, further causing grounds to depression, loss of productivity, malinvestment, unemployment and poverty.
Price control is another asset of interventionists through which they actually intend to help the common man but ends in hurting the common man to much extent. Government believes that the price of certain consumer commodity (say wheat) is too high; it wants all poor consumers to be able to have more wheat. Thus, it resorts to price fixing and fixes the price of wheat at a lower rate than that prevailing in the free market. As a result, the marginal producers and dealers of wheat, now incurs loss. As no individual farmer, producer or businessperson can keep producing at a loss, these marginal producers stop producing wheat, the dealers and sellers stop selling wheat in the market. They start using their resources to produce commodities not controlled by arbitrary price fixing (say soya been, or onion). As a result, the quantity of available wheat in market reduces significantly, and hence now, not only poor but also everyone suffers the lack of supply of wheat. The government thus is forced to borrow money from public to buy wheat from other producing countries. On the other hand, the extra supply of other commodities reduces demand and causes further resource mismanagement and wastage. If, in order to keep price of wheat fixed, yet not let the producers to suffer losses, government decides to control the prices of commodities necessary in production of wheat, the same story repeats itself, and ultimately, the end result of price fixing comes out to be deficiency of all productive units, producers, wastage of resources and means of production and overall deficiency of products causing poverty and starvation.

The Only Possible Solution

Irrespective of their supposedly good intentions, interventionists through their planning of mixed economy results in chaos and exact opposite results to their interventions. The middle path between the good (capitalism) and bad (socialism) proves to be an ugly vice (mixed economy).⁶ There is no alternative to totalitarianism than liberty, there is no possible profitable planning for freedom and common welfare than to let the market system work freely, There is no other means to attain full employment, rising real wage rates and an always improving standard of living of the common man than private initiative and free market.⁷

1. Refference::Planned Chaos, Ludwig Von Mises
2. Burden of debt and loss, Reason for Liberty
3. Population, Poverty and production, Reason for Liberty
4. Such Interventions creates Forced Economic Inequalities, Economic inequality based on freedom of individuals to exploit their own intelligence and talent is significantly less visible than the economic inequality that results because of forced planning or government coercion, Freedom Versus Egalitarianism
5. What really are Taxes, Reason for Liberty
6. Laissez-Fairre Free market capitalism is right, communism, socialism, collectivism is wrong, and the Mixed Economy system is Evil., The Middle Vice!
7. Refference::Planned Chaos, Ludwig Von Mises

1. It is a common trend going on these days. School children commit suicides because of the “oppressive school system”. It is “Oppression” that some students get higher marks while some fails. Thus, there should be a grading system. Anybody getting 80% and above, should be graded A+. Alas! So, there is no incentive for a student to master a subject and gain 100% marks. Even if he gets 80%, he will be at the top. In addition, he can never fail. It is the making of mediocre.,ReasonForLiberty
2. Division of labor, ReasonforLiberty