As libertarians, one of the reasons that we crave the salvation that comes with a stateless society is because we believe that within humans is the same need that we see in every living thing and even every subatomic particle that exists in the Universe–this is the ability to allow for autonomy, self-direction and the respect that should come with this responsibility. Even if something is an unthinking atom, a beautiful lantana flower, or a large beast like the blue whale, what we can say for sure is that the only thing obstructing their paths in doing what they so please and dealing with these consequences are the regularities of nature and the interspecies and intraspecies competition that comes with being part of a dynamic Universe and thriving world. I want to go over the correlation that we see between such passion in the political sphere and how it could and should extend to our personal lives.

If this is the truth, if what we so crave is freedom from oppression that comes with somebody trying to usurp your self-ownership–which can never, in fact, be done because you always have ultimate control over your own body–then what sort of deductions can we make from this on a more micro-level. Is there a way we can look at the concrete relationships that we involve ourselves in and see the mirror image of the sort of ignorant conceit that we get so uppity over the state for claiming wherein they can direct our lives instead of ourselves?

In any life form, there is a balance between competition and cooperations. As human beings, we know that the division of labor and the benefit and amount of productivity that comes with doing this is of immense benefit; we know that in order to get somebody to enter into an economic transaction with us without the use of the force, we have to offer them something not only that they want but something that they value more highly than whatever it is we want out of the trade. I believe this in our romantic, friend and our familial relationships, we need to demand the same of ourselves and of the people with whom we associate. This is an idea that has been most flushed out by Stefan Molyneux.

Ask yourself how often you look at a statist and think, how do they not see that these things are harmful to their well-being and also hurt those around them? Why in the world would any rational person accept the sort of abuse that comes from this coercive mechanism in which you have no say as to whether or not you are interested in buying, or whether you are interested in selling, as in eminent domain? How in the world has nearly the whole of humanity decided that instead of having love and respect for one another, we should constantly have ourselves split divisively by theft, by being told you may not enter into what voluntary associations that you will, by being told that your idea for a product is unsafe, by having it adjucated that your feeling of anxiety or injustice are illegitimate when done a disservice by either the State or the corporations with whom they are in cohorts? How did we get into this sad affair and why do people continue accepting it?

Now, again, I ask yourself to look around at the personal relationships that you involve yourself in. When you are in a conversation with your parents or any of your loved ones, it is important to make sure that when they voice a complaint you give that completely autonomous person the respect and thought that they deserve because their feelings are not invalid, and you should ask the same of all of those that you associate with. Why? Because we learn to accept our place in the world through not the completely abstract notion of the state but in our day-to-day doings.

As children, we are taught pretty young that we are not autonomous, that our wants and needs shall be subjucated to the wants and needs and others. That is, “you have to share,” something when you were just told it was yours, and then we are told that they didn’t really mean it was yours but it was on lease to you until the gift-giver decides that you do not have the exclusive right to use and dispose of. We ask ourselves over and over again–isn’t the philosophy of ownership so very obvious? Where have we gone wrong? It starts here. It starts with children who are given something to call their own but then they are deemed “selfish” and “mean-spirited” when they would like to use something that they were told was their own. They must share.

Delving into this selfishness more, what a blessing it would be to grow up in an environment where you are told that looking out for your own interests isn’t something to be viewed as evil, it isn’t something to be viewed as an affront to your fellow man. Man is supposed to denote the most rational being that there is, that we can possibly know of, at least, at this point in our technological development. If we are ever to truly respect other creatures including those with whom we share a species, one thing is completely and absolutely necessary to recognize: it cannot possibly be wrong to look out for your own well being. Every animal in the world is built to do it, to take fight or flight when they are in danger, to gather food, call it their own, to sustain their bodies, to mark the boundaries of their territory through chemical trails or other markers, to protect their young. If they fail to make the proper decisions, there is a possibility if they are a pack animals–as humans are, but in a different sense–that they will be lucky enough to have those with whom they are intimately involved lend them a helping hand. So, why, if everything down from ants and all of the way up to orcas have figured out this need for self-direction can we, who are oh so very proud at our ability to defeat the natural world, still so out of tune with its obviously lesson of spontaneous order and self-direction? We grow up and we hear our desire and need to look out for our own well-being is selfish; but who else will do it? When nobody is around, do we not eat because another may need the food? How far does the idea that we owe our lives to others really extend?

But then, we do not get any better at this when we are older. Our parents didn’t know so they never taught us, so we need to make it our absolute duty to take and understand the gravity of the responsibility of being a self-owner and respecting others with volition and a life to live. If we speak to our friends and tell them that this life decision is wrong, not only as a helping hand to show them the right way to go but making them feel bad about their thought process, about their own rationality which they have to use to navigate through the world, are we not seeing this same sort of abusive mentality that we receive from the state? We are telling our friends when we do not just say “perhaps there is a better course to take if you think about it like X, Y, and Z” but instead say “that is stupid. I cannot believe your so retarded that you think that is a good idea” we are reinforcing this same idea of impotency in grasping and taking control of your own personal world that we so hate to see in our government.

Another thing that we see and these two go hand in hand is the idea that you have to live at the service of others and that there are a lot of possible things that you can pursue in your life that are what you will be told is “impractical” for whatever myriad of reasons can be coughed up–because, what purpose do they serve? Who do they serve and maybe even as far as how will that service you financially. There is the stereotype of somebody going to art school when their parents wanted them to be a doctor. Where do we leave people when we tell them that their goals, the things that give them the most purpose in life, the most fulfilling feeling, are not fit to be lived?

When you look at your relationships in this way, if we look at our relationships in the way that we view the state, we can see that this is these are the exact sorts of things we are infuriated by.

There are a lot of theories about how to Smash the State (before it Smashes You). I have argued before that the way to go about this is person by person, case by case. To show a person from their point of view and their concerns how it is that the state is the antithesis of life and change so essential to the Universe, is the proper way to go about it. We need to do not only that but have it reflected in our treatment of the person, personally. This does not mean only believing you can have an honest, thoughtful relationship with those who hold your same views. For all we know, this can be a two way path. If we show people what it means to be respected as a individual with their own goals, their own thoughts and believe that they are worth pursuing for that individual, and they recognize how fulfilling it is, perhaps it will be easier for them to see how the State violates this right.

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

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

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

The Two Treaties of Government: John Locke

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

Atlas Shrugged: Ayn Rand

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

Economics in One Lesson: Henry Hazlitt

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

Human Action: Ludwig Von Mises

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

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

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

The Wealth of Nations: Adam Smith

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

The Animal Farm: George Orwell

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

The Law: Bastiat

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

Free to Choose: Milton Friedman

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

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

1. Why a public judicial system creates corrupt incentives? Author: Amelia Vreeland, RFL
2. http://www.adr.org/
3. The Nature Conservancy Conservation Easement

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

Intellect

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

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

“I“

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

Will and Will Power

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

Freedom

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘I’—am the witness. Witness of countless creatures passing by….
By the hazel spread of this sun, ’I’ exist.
Perpetual! In this perpetual light…
My broad, sturdy branches—complement my being.
I look up to the sky and it resounds—sky is your limit!
Every shred of my structure—a life giver.
Passing days—they are calm and I like spending time with them,
I can see—“see through” things.
I laugh…
Under the same sturdy branches, I witness virtually all gamuts of emotions—Broken hearts, meeting hearts, success’, failures, vows, maturing thoughts.
All blossoming and withering right under me. I smirk at it, I laugh and then suddenly I am drawn towards myself—and I am happy again!
Myriads of “colours” pass by me without even noticing me; except a ‘few’…
And to those ‘few’ I know, I give courage…
Courage—to face a lifetime.
Those ‘few’ who stop by to notice me are my epitomes. My alter egos….
I smile again, looking at them; those eyes, those beautiful, pristine eyes watching me and they give me—sheer pleasure.
Pleasure of watching them. The same pleasure which they derive, watching me…
We don’t talk but we understand a lot.
A reverence we pay to each other…..
I look back at myself and here again I am reaffirmed that Life holds new opportunities in the form of those ‘few’ and that Life goes on and that Life sees ‘Colours’,”Colours” don’t see life..
‘I’— am the world, ‘I’-am life,’I’-am complete.
I am I, the Individual.

Child Marriage

There is another twist in all this, parents are free to choose what sort of upbringing they provide to their children, one cannot force any sort of necessities on parents. As for example, one can suggest that providing health boosters like Bourn-vita or Complain, parents can remove any fear of malnutrition for their kids, yet there cannot be and should not be any law, which makes it compulsory for the every parent to provide Bourn-vita, Complain, Boost, or any other sort of tonic for their kids.
That is, although parents have duty towards their kids, the nature of duty is not forcible it is voluntary. Similarly, a couple may decide to send their kid to the best schools of their city to get education, other couple may decide for home-schooling, and some other couple may decide for alternative-education to provide certain skills to their kids.
In addition, there are child’s rights, which suggests that parents cannot make any such decision regarding their kids which essentially need a personal able consent of the child, as for example, if parents decide to marry their child, it is against the child’s right, child marriage is not proper, because it will be child’s freedom in future to decide for his/her sex partner when they will be able to make meaningful decisions with consent. Thus, although parents are free to decide how to grow up their kids there are certain restrictions in form of child’s rights.

Can Parents sell their Parental Rights?

Yet, if because of any circumstantial condition, a couple want to trade their parental rights over a kid to another couple fully or partially, can we stop it, or should we stop it? That is, if a couple want to sell or give their kid for certain/any reason to another needy couple who is ready to adopt a child is it legal?
Basically, any couple or single mother have this right, it is nothing different then the right of a woman to provide services as a surrogate mother, or as a foster-mother, mid-wife or second-mother.
Thus, although parents cannot force child-marriage, they certainly can decide to give their children to other couple/parents, just like Vasudev and Devaki decided to let Nand and Yashoda adopt their child Krishna.
Thus, we maintain that although parents or a single mother can sell their parental rights fully or partially to another couple according to a contract without worrying for child’s consent, they cannot arrange a child marriage. This is because of the fact that our relation to our parents is already involuntary, we cannot choose them, although a marriage is not an involuntary decision it is voluntary choice and hence, parents cannot enforce child marriage or even arrange marriage, although the children after growing up may opt for having an arranged marriage voluntarily.
Now one can raise the legitimate question that what will happen if this assumed right of parents to sell their parental rights and duties partially or completely to other couple is used to facilitate human trafficking or prostitution or child labor.
My question is, just as a parent can invigorate, exhort and inspire their kid to study and try to be an engineer, doctor, cricketer or teacher etc, if some parent decides to teach their child to be a belle dancer, or a bar dancer, an actor, a porn actor or even a prostitute, can we oppose it? Can we oppose if a couple want to teach their kid agriculture techniques, shoe-making, shopkeeping, trading, or sculptor making, or painting? How can we oppose it, and why should we oppose it?
I support the idea of freedom to kids, the idea of Montessori schooling⁶ , but no law can stop the parents or peers to provide a certain taste to be developed in a child, which may/may not decide his/her future. It is parent’s voluntary choice to provide free healthy upbringing of the child, others can provide awareness and help voluntarily, there can be and should be no compulsion.
Since we cannot stop the original parents to induce certain tastes in their kids, nor it is our duty or right to interfere in anybody’s family, although we can make common statements, articles and advertises against anomalies, hence we can even not stop a couple to give off their kid to anyone who will facilitate such acts. Yet we can stop any paedophilic action based on individual case study of the issue to look for age of consent. That is, although a couple is free to trade off their parental right, child rights remain intact and protected.

Child Labour

Now there again erupts the question of child labor. If we can oppose pedophile actions and make laws against it, why cannot we make laws against child labour?
The issue is of the differentiation of various works categorized as per the risk involved.
We can make laws against child labor in dangerous or more risky zones of work, yet we cannot stop child artists from working, we cannot stop child painters, musicians, dancers, singers, actors, players etc from working, practicing, performing, that is their basic education. We cannot stop a child from working at a tea stall or a hotel or even at home. We can certainly stop a child to work in risky industrial works and other sort of risky works involved including sex-works, yet again, here also we will have to study each case with unbiased perspective to check for age of consent.
My intentions with this article are to raise the issue of freedom of parents about how to raise their kids, my intentions are to raise this issue towards the gender inequalities and issues of inheritance.
We have maintained that although parenthood is a voluntary relationship, parents are free to choose about how to grow-up their kids, kids do not have much to say about that yet, can children demand any inherent right in parental property?
The only right an Individual possess is right to live free, he cannot have any such right as to own a property without earning it or getting it freely gifted for him. Thus, parents possess the right to disinherit their child after a certain age of consent⁷ .
I will discuss the Indian laws of inheritance and the parental right to disinherit in next addition and my intentions will be to raise the issue against son or daughter’s right to demand partition of parental property.

1. On Truth-Tyranny of Illusion, Stefan Molyneux
2. Tyranny of Involuntary Relations, Reason For Liberty
3. Tyranny of Involuntary Relations, Reason For Liberty
4. Age of Consent, Reason for Liberty
5. Age of Consent, Reason for Liberty
6. Montessori Schooling and Peer Pressure, Reason for Liberty
7. Age of Consent, Reason for Liberty

“Sir, you need to immediately visit St-Tropez and beaches in France as Pakistan has coastal areas that could be built on similar lines to attract foreign tourists,” Senator Enver Baig advised the minister. The proposal was readily endorsed by other participants of the meeting held on Wednesday.¹

The Minister believes that visiting foreign beaches will broaden Mr Rehman’s “intellectual” horizon.
Obviously, peeping on topless beach-goers will certainly increase the “intellect”.
Anyways, what do you think about the ban of alcohol in Gujarat?
Gujarat also has a big shoreline that can easily be converted to well-maintained private or government supported tourist line.
Recently after the Mumbai terrorist attack, Indian Intelligence pointed out the doubt that terrorist might have entered Indian coastal lines through Gujarat sea area.²
If Government allow and inspire private investors to develop Gujarat coastal area, that will provide enough reason to keep a keen eye at Indian shores with a proper safety need to abort any such further attempt by terrorists or attackers.
In addition, it will create jobs and options to produce wealth and that will reduce poverty. As the private investors on the Gujarat shoreline will be earning from it, they will provide or innovate a better and proper safety net to protect their consumers and visitors and foreign tourists.
Yet, the problem of Gujarat coastal lines will face the same situation as the Pakistan Ministry is facing. Alcohol is completely abolished in Gujarat. When in 2007, CM Modi tried to relieve bans on alcohol, congress politicians opposed the move, claiming it is against Gandhiji’s moral and disrespect for all Gujarat if government allows sale of alcohol.
Should we send all such Indian politicians to seashores of south France too along with Mr Rehman? They may also experience the increase of “intellect” then.
Indians exclaim about there pseudo-secularism pompously, but the reality is, India is no better than any theocracy like Pakistan where the political goons keep teaching and preaching Morality and culture every now and then.

1. Tourism, Islam, ban on liquor and advice to visit foreign beaches, The International News
2. Terrorist knocking on Indian Doors, Reason for Liberty

“It is a deep fear of the responsibility and risk of having to make one’s own decisions and accept the consequences, with no ultimate authority to appeal to for guidance and to blame in case of failure. This is the reason for such cries as “We must have strong leadership in this time of crisis,” “We need new and better leaders,” and “God, give us a leader “.

People who fear responsibility find it easier to call for leaders, even when those leaders may become tyrants, than to accept the risk and effort of looking for solutions to the problems that beset them.
Upon examination, such people usually prove to be suffering from a deficiency of self-esteem—lacking a sense of personal efficacy and worth, they feel a sneaky, uncommitted doubt about their ability to survive in a world where they will never be provided with the unearned. Those who persist, in spite of all evidence to the contrary, in believing that totalitarianism makes a nation strong are revealing a sneaky admiration for dictatorship. Such an admiration springs from a psychological dependency which cannot conceive of having to be free and thrown on one’s own uncertain resources.”
We are now getting to the other part of the problem-Why people are attracted to men with a dark side. Men have always had a fascination for the dark. They had worshiped fire and thunderstorms. As long as there are rejecting or tyrannical parents, people will have a fascination for such men. They want others to treat them as they were treated as a child. It is a severe mental disorder. It is an addiction, worse than any narcotic addiction or alcoholism. Nothing good can come out of such a relationship. Masochism is all there is behind this perversion. Some turn to the other side of the coin warding off their pain and tender feelings as weaknesses.
Camille Paglia, another female writer, who is known as the Ayn Rand of 90’s in her writings, find fault with abused women as they are weak; that they might be enjoying it covertly. I am not to question the merit of her argument, which could be right or wrong, as the case might be, but it is no coincidence that Paglia; Rand are Nietzschean’s. It is also, not a coincidence that Nietzsche, who believed in eliminating all weaknesses and tenderness, was a German. It was the brutal parenting in Germany, in those days, inspired by many writers including Shrebers, which created a Hitler, and many men who would march to his tune. Hitler, who was afraid of his father, too believed in rooting out all weaknesses and instilling cruelty. So, did his humiliated followers. Pseudo-strength and cruelty, they thought would let off their secret shame. It didn’t!

Many of you would have read of the merits of the superior culture of pre-World War I Germany. “Children were all disciplined and well behaved, as military cadets.” It is the very same culture which they praise, that paved way for a dictatorship. It was then believed that the will of a child is to be broken for him to be easily manipulated later. A child manipulated that way could be manipulated as easily, later, by an adult. She, in fact, would seek men who would be in control and manipulate her that way. She roots out her pain and humiliating imagining all these manipulations and abuse to be expressions of strength. It is such manipulations which makes things easier for Hitlers, Stalins; Saddams. Some learn the art from being once manipulated that way. It is worth noting that Saddam, Hitler, Pol Pot; Stalin all were extremely tortured as children.
It is the early idealization of parental figure, based on a faith-Which means: not based on any rational evidence, which is the very root of this neurosis. It is the belief that children should love their parents. It is the belief that one shouldn’t be true to oneself, but act on a sense of duty. All religions and variants of totalitarianism, including statism are based on such faiths: that some acts or emotions are good in, by and of itself, and that one should act against his own self interest. Such notions help them to repress what was done to them in their childhood. They imagine themselves to possess a love which, in fact, is only a vague apprehension they can neither define nor cure. What else is the path towards virtuosity? When it comes to their mind what was done to them, the only solution it would occur to them would not be to hate their parents, but to idealize their acts. The same happens to men in a dictatorship too. They try to evade their hatred acting it out on others, by torturing their own selves or seeking others who would do that job much effectively. How far they are from their true selves! They haven’t even the wits to know such behavior was motivated by power hunger, humiliation and revenge and not by any benevolent motive. Love, discipline and charity aren’t to be instilled by a sense of duty. The only solution is to have their hatred rightly directed. One would ask: What is to be gained by such hatred? My answer is: No one gains anything by faking reality. No one can oppose injustice giving moral sanction to it. It is much better to have that hatred directed rightly. It is much better to be true to one self. Does that mean one should act on it? Not necessarily!

The first Irony of the political freedom is the very logic of democracy¹ which just seeks a 50% + 1 as the mandatory majority for any democratic resolution to get through. Even though this tyranny of majority on the free will of the minority defies all logic of individual liberty and freedom, it is still hailed as one of the most fair and just political systems which at any time represents will of the majority of its citizens. For instance we may have voted against the present regime of government, but we still honor outcome of a democratic contest and accept its decision as our own. In American context Barak Obama² is president of each and every American irrespective of whom they voted in the election. The moment we accept this as a fact and with our free will decides to follow and exercise democracy, we cannot exonerate ourselves thereafter from consequence of any decision our representatives take on our behalf. Citizens of nations under monarchies, or military dictatorship or for that matter under a communist regimes, where irrespective of the civic freedom, political freedom is considerable negligible, can feign away from this responsibility. It is so that Iraqi citizens cannot be held responsible for the gulf war but American citizens have to shoulder their part of responsibility for the event. It can thus be stated that freedom is a great privilege and power and with it comes great responsibility.

Let us now examine the nature of freedom, what is its essence, what really constitutes our idea of freedom and how it manifests in our day to day life and society. If you equate freedom to lawlessness, some kind of manifestation of wild, where there are no laws no regulations to follow, we would arrive at rather dubious conclusions out of it. Many war trodden countries of Africa where civic administration has completely collapsed, there exist no civic laws for that matter no traffic laws. You don’t have to stop at every red light that you encounter on the road, and can even get away with a murder for that matter. Will it be then prudent to state that citizens of these seemingly lawless countries enjoy more freedom than countries with democratic set ups like India or America? The answer is an obvious no, and as to why these civic laws and regulations do not infringe our freedom is simply because these laws exist as an exercise of free will and rationality at the first place. As rational human beings we felt the need for these laws and so it was imposed on ourselves and our society. In addition we reserve the rights to amend or remove the laws that are found to be inappropriate or have out lived its utility. We have choice with these laws but once in place we need to follow them, similarly we do have choice with our governance, but once in place we have to bear with it till its allocated period in office is over. There are provisions of impeachments and dissolution of government available in democratic set ups, It is however a rather difficult task and quite out of hand with respect to an ordinary citizen.

The second Irony of democratic political freedom is that although we do have a choice, we do not have choice of action but merely choice of electing representatives who would thereafter act on our behalf. Even though governments do try and sway the public opinion in their favor over major issues of national interest, it is merely a political compulsion rather than political necessity. Political freedom thus essentially manifests in the truest sense in a very brief window. It is the time when we exercise our liberty to choose our representatives and empower them to take decisions on our behalf. Thereafter public opinion acts merely as a subtle pressure on the political forum.

Idealistically we can at this point denounce the very concept of democratic political freedom, and argue that we have indeed got very little on the name of freedom.³ Pragmatically however we all are aware that democracy is here to stay. It has established itself as one of the most stable and effective forms of governance. Society is not yet grown to accept anarchy and dissolution of state as a viable solution. If we are to accept this fact then the only solution we are left with is to revitalize and strengthen democracies. Find means to plug the loopholes existing in the system and make it as foolproof and workable as possible.

At this juncture let us re-examine our idea of freedom. If we dissect our concept of freedom we would realize that it finally manifests merely as some choices that we get to make. How dimensionless free will gets limited to freedom to make certain choice would be a philosophical ordeal for us to fathom. It is also perhaps beyond the scope of this article, but what needs to be crucially examined is if the choices that we finally make are rational and a legitimate exercise of free will. Although lots of studies exist on mind and its nature both in philosophy and psychology, one that especially pertains to our context is Hegelian dialectics named after Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel a nineteenth century philosopher. He in his philosophical work examined the very nature of human reality as a prelude to understanding human choices emanating out of it. Hegelian dialectics state that our reality consist of two essential part a thesis (what it is subset) and an antithesis (what it is not subset) and our idea of reality a synthesis (a superset) of both. It applies to both perceptual reality and conceptual reality that our minds can figure. For instance idea of color red is incomplete without having an idea of both what red color is and what it is not. If you see everything red you cannot distinguish it from any other color. A blind man is presumed to see everything dark or black, but a person who is born blind cannot explain the concept of darkness, for he has never seen any light to distinguish his perception as one of darkness. Conceptual realities to same phenomenon exists our idea of good is incomplete without an idea of bad. That is if there is no conception of bad there is no conception of good either. A good example for this would be movies of super heroes. The moment we create a super hero we need to create a super villain to validate his existence. What use is spider man if he was to just deal with petty thieves and burglars who are no match to his powers. Only through induction of a super villain and his triumph over this villain can we really accept him as a super hero. Almost every religion conceived the idea of bad and evil the moment they conceived the idea of good and God. Without dwelling in further detail this duality or dichotomy of our reality let us examine its implication on our idea of freedom and choices that we tend to make.

The applied studies of this concept are popularly known as perception management also quite infamously known as problem- reaction-solution among conspiracy theorist. The point however is not how extensively it has been used the state but the viability of the whole idea and its implication on our freedom. If we are to be denied any part of the information both from thesis or antithesis front our perception of reality will alter dramatically. Our perception further has lacunae which are known in psychological parlance as availability heuristics and confirmation bias. Simply put our minds have a tendency to put one and one together at the first available opportunity and thereafter have a tendency to stick to this idea even when presented with contradicting information. This phenomenon is also brought forth in the popular idiom ‘First impression is the last impression’.
Both America and India, the strongest and the largest democracies in the world have had instances of 9/11 and 26/11⁴ respectively wherein there was an equal failure in the part of intelligence administration and also at the later stages states ability to tackle a developing disaster. The perception of the public was however managed away from these glaring failures of state administration to external enemies, on whom the whole blame was fixed. There is so much of red tape-ism which regulates and at times manages the flow of information between the state and its citizens that it is practically possible for the state to actually do what these conspiracy theorist claim.

How is it then that we can really envisage a more enduring freedom for ourselves?⁵ The answer lies in slowly dis-empowering the state. To start with government must have no control over the media. Media must not be state run at all as far as possible and it must be kept insulated from other instruments of state. Media itself however has to rise to the need of the hour and act in an utmost responsible manner. In addition all other instruments of state like judiciary, policing and investigation must be privatised or private players must also be included to prevent state from manipulating these instruments to get public perception in their favour.

It is very necessary at this juncture that we make some modifications to our idea of freedom itself. Most of us tend to carry an 18th century baggage with respect to this concept. To many a people, slavery is when one is chained and made to work like an animal and relatively anything else is more or less freedom. Many others misinterpret self governance to freedom. To most Indians, India was free before the English came and free thereafter. Not many are able to really apply logic and explain how is it that a rule of Indian monarchic ruler better than rule of queen of Britain. Post independence which is also termed as freedom struggle, India happened to inherit the concept of democracy from Britain itself. It is what is now celebrated as the coveted freedom by most. If we have to make progress towards ensuring that our so called freedom has some real viability. If we have our choices marked out clear in light of reason and justice and not on some manipulated emotional or non consequential agenda brought forth by political parties to sway our judgment, we have to first admit the limitation and nature of freedom that have in our hand and thereafter make endeavor to improve upon it by slowly dis-empowering the state and reducing its power to more manageable limits. At this moment we are far away from it and in fact moving in opposite direction. The new anti terror laws in India and patriotic acts⁶ in America are instances of such infringement of our freedom to further incapacitating levels. It is for us to decide which way we would like to move and exercise our choice before we are left with none.

1. Impasse of Democracy, Voting is not a solution, it is a Killer
2. Killing Instinct of President,Barack Obama
3. Need of Individual Autonomy,Reason for Liberty
4. Terrorist attack on Hotel Taj, 26/11/08
5. Sovereign Citizen, Sovereign state
6. UAPA and Patriot Act, Military Keynesianism

“Even if it were true that there is a Hindu temple under every mosque in India, what was under the temple? Most likely an Adivasi Shrine. How deep shall we dig?”

This is the reason I am not at all sympathetic towards Anti-Reservation activists. It is also not at all evident that confiscating all property and distributing would cure the problem of poverty. It would only lead to chaos and poverty for all.
Let me quote some libertarian theorists in this issue. Rothbard writes in “Egalitarianism-As A Revolt Against Nature” that “It is not enough to call simply for defense of the “rights of private property”; there must be an adequate theory of justice in property rights, else any property that some State once decreed to be private” must now be defended by Libertarians, no matter how unjust the procedure or how mischievous its consequences.”
Or of the man who might be the current possessor by purchasing the land from Henry Jones X? If Smith and his descendants are lost to antiquity, then title to the land properly and legitimately belongs to the current Jones (or the man who has purchased it from him), direct application of our theory of property titles.” “Suppose that centuries ago, Smith was tilling the soil and therefore legitimately owning the land; and then that Jones came along and settled down near Smith, claiming by use of coercion the title to Smith’s land, and extracting payment or “rent” from Smith for the privilege of continuing to till the soil. Suppose that now, centuries later, Smith’s descendants (or, for that matter, other unrelated families) are now tilling the soil, while Jones’s descendants, or those who purchased their claims, still continue to exact tribute from the modern tillers. Where is the true property right in such a case? It should be clear that here, just as in the case of slavery, we have a case of aggression against the true owners-the true possessors–of the land, the tillers, or peasants, by the illegitimate owner, the man whose original and continuing claim to the land and its fruits has come from coercion and violence. Just as the original Jones was a continuing aggressor against the original Smith, so the modern peasants are being aggressive against by the modern holder of the Jones-derived land title. In this case of what we might call “feudalism” or “land monopoly,” the feudal or monopolist landlords have no legitimate claim to the property. The current “tenants,” or peasants, should be the absolute owners of their property, and, as in the case of slavery, the land titles should be transferred to the peasants, without compensation to the monopoly.
Ludwig Von Mises’ ideas are entirely opposite in this regard. He writes in “Economic Freedom And Interventionism :“Under the conditions of the capitalistic market society this program of land reform no longer makes any sense. In the market economy the consumers daily decide anew who should own the material factors of production and how much anybody should own. By their buying or abstention from buying the consumers allot control of the material factors of production to those who know how to use them in the best and cheapest way for the satisfaction of the most urgent wants of the consumers. Ownership of land means in the market economy the sovereignty of the consumers. The owners are mandatory of the consumers as it were, bound to employ their property as if it were entrusted to them by the people. When they fail in this regard, they suffer losses. Then they are forced to improve their management or, finally, they go bankrupt. Others who know better how to serve the consumers replace them.”
I would have to state that I am totally in agreement with the views of Rothbard in this issue. Property appropriated wrongfully should be given back to the victims of his descendants wherever they can be traced.

Worth Mentioning::So let me suggest a truly audacious hope for your administration: How about a five-year time-out on war – unless, of course, there is a genuine threat to the nation?⁴

1. Obama ordered attack on Pakistan, 23rd of January, Times Online UK.
2. Obama ordered Missile attack on pakistan on 26th of january, TOI
3. Paul Krugman, after the 9/11 attacks
4. Calling a Time Out

Isabel Paterson was of the opinion that most of the harm done on earth is basically by good individuals. They support wrong policies because they are well intentioned. They don’t wish harm on their fellow citizens. Unable to see the consequences of the ideas and policies they support, they bring greater harm than malicious individuals. It is true that most of the individuals are well meaning, at least on a conscious level. They stick to conventional morality. Ayn rand doesn’t seem to be completely unaware of this. Consider these words of her about the Twentieth century Motor company-

“We saw that we’d been given a law to live by, a moral law, they called it, which punished those who observed it—for observing it. The more you tried to live up to it, the more you suffered; the more you cheated it, the bigger reward you got. Your honesty was like a tool left at the mercy of the next man’s dishonesty. The honest ones paid, the dishonest collected. The honest lost the dishonest won.”

However, it is not true that the people who stick to the conventional moral code are entirely innocent. Their intentions were well expressed by these words of Rand:

“We weren’t so innocent either. We didn’t do it just because we believed that the drippy old guff they spewed was good. We had another reason, but the guff helped us to hide it from our neighbors and from ourselves. The guff gave us a chance to pass off as virtue something that we’d be ashamed to admit otherwise. There wasn’t a man voting for it who didn’t think that under a setup of this kind he’d muscle in on the profits of the men abler than himself. There wasn’t a man rich and smart enough but that he didn’t think that somebody was richer and smarter, and this plan would give him a share of his betters’ wealth and brain. “

It might not be true that all who hold wrong ideas are evil. Barbara Branden rightly asks “We shouldn’t denounce someone who does not understand what we learned only yesterday. Were we evil the day before yesterday?” While some of the people hold wrong ideas mistakenly, there is overwhelming evidence to say that a lot many of them are motivated by evil intentions. It is evident from the fact that most of the innovators were opposed by the majority of the masses.
Great businessmen were called robber barons. It is also interesting to note that most people who hate big businessmen, inventors and innovators love and admire dictators. So many publications in my state shed crocodile tears when Saddam was murdered. Those publications criticize Bush, but it seems that they criticize him only because they think America to be a leading capitalist country. Another striking fact is that though a lot many people are sympathetic towards socialism, and in the days of Soviet Union praised the stupendous achievements of Soviet Union, there was no brain drain to Soviet Russia. Today a lot many people praise the achievements of Cuba in health care and other aspects, but still there is no brain drain to Cuba. Why is that so?
It is also worth noting that the greatest supporters of Socialism and totalitarianism are intellectuals. It is not surprising when we consider the fact that intellectuals are dependent on the state for their survival! How could some one evade the glaringly obvious fact that the freest nations are the most prosperous and the poorest ones are the most controlled?

“Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy. The savage’s whole existence is public, ruled by the laws of his tribe. Civilization is the process of setting man free from men.”

1. National Newspaper, Times of India
2. National Newspaper, Times of India
3. Orkut Scandal, Google
4. Terrorist, Times of India

Altruistic paradox is unlikely a new term for most readers, especially those who have some inclination into objectivist or rather post/pro Darwinian philosophies if I am asked. I would however start with an attempt to firstly state what this paradox is all about in its classical sense. A psychological overview based on certain studies, which were done specifically to prove or disprove this theory. Finally, I shall attempt to put in perspective the term ‘selfishness’ as brought out in Objectivist philosophy.

Before the Darwinian theory of evolution came forth, the most accepted theories on origin of man were religious philosophies. All of them invariably pointed towards an intelligent design of universe and man. They held man as the finest creation of God, and qualities like altruism and love for fellow being intrinsic qualities that were embedded in man heart by the divine creator himself. Darwinian Theory of evolution changed this perception forever, with scientific proofs backing his theory he put forth the various laws of evolution. His theories of ‘natural selection’ and ‘survival of the fittest’ brought forth aggression and continuous competition between the species and more visibly within the species as most intrinsic and instinctive behavior. He argued that each living entity aggressively struggles for ones survival and further procreation. Implication of the theory was therefore that Altruism among humans is simply a paradox and our actions are not motivated by any higher altruistic goals but very selfish instincts.

Human behavior as understood by the present day psychology however transcends both these arguments. The studies that were conducted to understand various behavioral aspects of humans both clinical methods and psychoanalytic have revealed various interesting facts about these debated behavioral aspects. Altruism has been found as a behavioral trait in many species like squirrels monkeys and humans. Female Squirrels for instance make distress calls and assess its male counterparts based on their response. Guerrillas and monkeys are known to respond when the members of their clan are attacked at times some members even risking their life for the group. Discovery is rather filled with documentaries showing mothers of various species risking their lives to save their offspring. These behaviours are not in contradiction with the Darwinian Theory of evolution. Theory of Natural selection gives room to nature to select certain characteristics that aid in a species successful survival. Nature seems to encourage altruistic traits in species where offspring need a lot of support and care before they are on their own. Humans too invariably fall in that category, invariable all females have tendency to prefer protective and caring males because such instincts are more beneficial towards protection and care of offspring. Females being the one with limited capacity to procreate tend to be choosy in this regard.

What nature promotes is certain characteristic traits that are altruistic in nature overtly, but serves a very selfish purpose of self procreation covertly. Nature favors genes and not individuals based on traits that help survival the best. A classical example being the species of Black widow spider, the female has the tendency to feed on male during intercourse. Invariably the male is killed in the process and male spiders are afraid of female for this reason. It is thus that the male whose sexual drive far exceeds its intrinsic fear of death attempts mating and therefore procreates. Its fearful counterparts though live longer but in longer run vanish. Similarly, in case of species where offspring need more care and protection genes, which have more tendencies to emotionally, attach and take care stands better chance.

Such findings however do not put in perspective the philosophical and religious concepts of altruism. One that holds in esteem sacrifice of individuals for the society defines selfless love and other altruistic conceptions. These behavior trends that are found human society has its root origin in another phenomenon called social conditioning. Human mind is subjected to rhetoric conditioning by the society. Cognitive development of personality of individuals have so much bearing on the environment that he has been brought up that you can make a man most willingly carry out suicide bombing. Similarly, men can be conditioned to pity and piety, altruistic behavior patterns like sacrificing oneself for nation, for ones religion, for ones society, family and so and so forth. William MacDougall, one of the founders of social psychology had pointed out how our growth of self consciousness and self regarding sentiments is influenced by the approval and disapproval by fellow men

Almost all that animals are capable in some degree of learning to modify their instinctive behaviour in the light of experience, under the influence of pain and pleasure, and in young child, also this kind of learning leads to first step beyond pure instinctive behavior.

In this way, the child’s idea of his self early comes to be an idea, not merely of his body and of certain bodily and mental capabilities, but also of system of relation between his self and other selves. Now the attitude of other person is presented towards him are more or less freely expressed by them in praise, reproof, gratitude, reproach, anger, pleasure or displeasure and so forth.

The child’s self consciousness is, then, nourished and molded by the reflection of himself that he finds in minds of his fellows

The strength of the regard men pay to the public opinion, the strength of their desire to secure approval and avoid disapproval of the fellow men goes beyond all rational grounds.

Idea that I am trying to bring forth here is that behavior trends that we tend to hold in high esteem as self less and altruistic is nothing more than a learned behavior that confirms with the self regarding sentiments that he has over the time molded to confirm. Behavior of certain nature gives his ego a boost, confirms with his image in the society and reaffirms the image that he has in his mind, the so called man in the mirror. You may even find criminal tendencies originating from such self regarding sentiment where in the criminal finds losing touch with his self if he does not continue committing crime.

Other classical examples are study on changing attitudes of children towards Negroes (study during apartheid era). The child who initially is very comfortable and loving with his coloured nanny, with time starts distancing and even abusing the same lady. In Indian context, there are instances where child of upper caste reared on the milk of lower caste women, grows up to regard her as untouchable. Social conditioning can thus explain a plethora of behavior trends that does not confirm with instinctual human behaviour.

Coming to Ayn Rand and her philosophy of objectivism, she was a lady born and brought up in Soviet Russia. She had seen the extents to which men can be exploited on the name of community and society. She had seen in her life men getting sacrificed both willingly and unwillingly to this irrational order. Her endeavour in her work was to free the man to whatever extent possible from the clutches of society. His protagonist were therefore always highly individualistic and to an extent antisocial beings.

Without dwelling into the whole epistemology of her philosophical derivations, if her philosophy were to be summarized, it would be thus. Objectivism holds reality to be absolute and objective in nature. That is A is A and 2+2 = 4, she allows no scope of relativity or perceptual bias in this regard. Secondly, she holds reason as the sole tool to make sense of the world around us, and what we derive using this tool has no biases or mystic vision. One thus need not depend on mosses or Jesus, Muhammad or Krishna or for that matter Ayn Rand to make sense of reality. No commandments or religious dictum need to be followed. What needs to be followed is purely your rational judgement. What man can perceive objectively is his self and his judgment are therefore with his context, his actions as value he derives out of it.

What we derive from here is our argument of selfishness. Well consider this scenario, you have a piece of cake in your hand and you are feeling a bit hungry, a very hungry visibly distressed kid comes in front of you and starts begging for it. What do you do? Your action can be turning away from there and having your piece of cake, or giving it to the kid. If the gleam on the face of that kid when he gets the cake is more valuable to you that satisfaction that you would have by consuming it, you can go ahead and give it to the kid. Now if you friends are standing next to you and you want to impress them, well that is again your choice, and your valuation of the action. There is no selfless in the act, it is yourself only that is deriving the pleasure and satisfaction from the action. It is but by no means correct that your friends force you to give away your cake when you wanted to have it. In such scenario in heart of heart you are not happy with what you did, or rather were made to do. In similar manner, a soldier fighting for his nation must exercise the same volition and rational judgment, and if his action suits his self, he is justified in his actions. It may be deemed as altruistic by fellow countrymen but by no logic self less. It is indeed if it was self less you have taken from the soldier the very pleasure and purpose of his life.

It is this simple fact that is not understood by many and they go about making heroes and villains out of people without judging the rationality of their actions. The society tends to push its agenda and perception bit too harshly on the individuals. It is this coercive nature of collectivism where in actions by individuals are labelled as good or bad without respecting the individuals volition and choice is what she most vehemently objected and fought. She held the state, society and the collectivist mentality that it these institutions endorse as the root cause of most vices. She rallied with the word selfishness, instead of some benign alternative perhaps because it suited her fiction writer mannerism of invoking controversy. If we do not shy to attribute her credit, she has in a single word challenged the very foundation of social moral codes. It is amazing how a single word can have such massive impact on our collective consciousness. How by declaring a classical vice having its root in holiest of books of our civilization as the new age’s virtue she altered the very perception of millions across the globe.

1. Bailout for Satyam,The Economic Times of India
2. pdf file of Raju’s , resignation letter
3. Mynampati asks for help, Economic Times
4. Satyam Fraud,could net politicians too.
5. Yahoo News, Gopichand Hinduja says Ramlinga Raju was more Genius than government regulators

Explaining the idea of moderation further, Aristotle said—
“Virtue must have the quality of aiming at the intermediate. But not every action nor every passion admits of a mean; for some have names that already imply badness, e.g., spite, shamelessness, envy, and in the case of actions adultery, theft, murder; for all of these and suchlike things imply by their names that they are themselves bad, and not the excess or deficiencies of them. It is not possible, then, ever to be right with regard to them; one must always be wrong.”

Such is the name of slavery, it is wrong in any sense. Moderate, regulated slavery alias mixed economy, regulated capitalism is as vice as extreme slavery is.
Quoting Ayn Rand:

“There are two sides to every issue. One side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil.”

Laissez-Fairre Free market capitalism is right, communism, socialism, collectivism is wrong, and the Mixed Economy system is Evil.

There were 32,719 incidents of murder recorded in India, whereas there were 16,692 in the US and 9,631 in Pakistan,
Indian population is 3 times US, and murders in India are twice. So per capita murder rate is only 33% less, not a whole lot. Thus, it is a myth that India has very low murder rate. In addition, numbers of unheard and unregistered cases of crimes in India are higher.
In the previous article, we discussed how the idea of increase in domestic violence and homicide if guns are allowed, is wrong. Here are some facts again—
Dept of Justice Homicide Statistics
Even though guns in US are NOT decreasing, family homicides are coming down. It is because of the revival of family laws, as family laws are being improved, domestic violence and family homicide is also decreasing. Guns have nothing to do with it.
Israel has highest gun ownership, and least family violence. Family violence in Switzerland, Canada etc is unheard. Moreover, in US too, it is decreasing day by day despite high gun ownership.
So fear that guns will increase family homicide is highly misplaced.
Hoplophobes claims that if guns are allowed, people may kill each other on just at spurt of anger. The thing is, people do not live to kill each other. Imagine of the most rash and aggressive person of your family and friend circle, or the angriest person you ever met. If guns are allowed to them, whom they will kill? Will they kill their family members, friends, or strangers walking on roads? How many times they have stabbed others with a kitchen knife in anger.
Therefore, the argument that the common people are “sociopaths” who are looking to kill other person (each other?) and all they are waiting for is a government licensed legal gun to kill each other is illogical.
Other argument the hoplophobes put forward against gun right supporters is, the gun-right supporters are basically of urban areas, and if they visit Indian villages they will realize the ground reality and understand that gun rights is not possible.
Yet the fact is opposite. In my native village, there is no police station within the 10 major big village areas. So in order to protect themselves against robbers and crop-looters or cattle-thieves, almost every second household of the villages has a licensed (or unlicensed) gun (firearm).
So the hoplophobes will claim that Guns have no place in civilized society. And that will be most ridiculous argument they can put up with.
The List of Countries by Gun ownership available on Wikipedia will ridicule such statement.
Where are more civilian owned guns, in Canada or in Namibia? (The answer is of course Canada.) Where are more civilian owned guns, in America or Nigeria? Wikipedia link says America.
The hoplophobes will start attacking the ethnicity than, by claiming that Indians are not responsible enough to be trusted with guns. Well, on my own experience of my native village, even the villagers with just formal education are responsible and intelligent enough to hold safety-guns. Yet the question is, what do these hoplophobes mean by saying that Americans can have gun-rights but Indians can not because “Indians are more emotional, illiterate, blah blah”?
Do they mean to say that Indians have less IQ than Americans? Or, do they consider Indians genetically weaker than Americans, are the hoplophobes racists? Do they consider that Indians are inheritably less intelligent than Americans are?
According to the Indian Arms Act of 1859, only British were allowed to hold guns, and it was illegal for Indians to own a gun. So do these hoplophobes want to say that “Dogs and Indians not allowed to carry guns“?

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

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

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

Later on he says about wealth and richness –

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

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

I would like to draw a distinction firstly between literacy and education. A person who can read and write is literate. Literacy however by no means can be equated with education, and neither is literacy a precursor or a mandatory requirement for actually judging a person educated. The ability to read and write is nothing but just a tool, it gives us access to plethora of written material. We can use that tool to widen our sphere of knowledge, interact through books and other written media with people of our age and those who are no more amidst us but their thoughts, brilliance of ages that has percolated through books. This tool can be used effectively so to say in our process of educating ourselves. It is however wrong to claim that without it we could not achieve this feat.

Secondly I would like to bring out the difference between qualification and education.
I address the term educated to people who simply have two attributes. Firstly they have a mental faculty so trained and developed to apply it with reason and logic to any situation presented to them. Secondly some life skill they have mastered so as to perform certain useful role in society. One may ask is an illiterate farmer in some village educated, as per me he well may be. If he has trained his mind well enough to judge rationally and react aptly to his environment, which includes people whom he is dealing with. Along with that he is good at his chosen profession he is by all means educated. He may not be aware about Indo-American nuclear deal, but is aware of which crop to sow when, knows how to judge soil and skies, so as to be successful in his endeavors of agriculture, he is definitely educated.

One may ask that such a person however is unequipped and unaware of various new schemes that government is bringing in for farmers. He may also be duped by some conman to take loans that he cannot repay, so and so forth. Will all that not construe as lack of education. My argument on the issue is simple, we the so called educated people, are we aware of all the policies that government brings forth. Are we not equally susceptible to falling in debt traps? We all have a sphere of knowledge around us which we endeavor to expand to a level of reasonable comfort. At this level of knowledge we are able to perform almost every day to day activity without wondering as to how or being lost. This level however varies from person to person, and that makes our individual knowledge about various issues different. If the farmer feels uncomfortable with his level of knowledge he would by all means try and expand it. He will ask people whom he trusts. If nothing satisfies he would learn how to read and write and thereafter through written media increase his knowledge to this level of comfort. Everyone does that when we go to a new office first day of work, a bride when she goes to her new house. Education however comes into play as to how fast we become aware of the changing environment and gear up to tackle it and of course how we actually go about tackling it.
A farmer of Vidharbha and a techie of Bangalore who commits suicide at the same time lack education in same life skill, which make them, take such harsh and self defeating decision at the time of peril. Many may ask farmer may have been lured and duped by some conniving man on the pretext of him being illiterate and uneducated, well then what about the techie who was duped almost in similar manner by some bank or credit card firm or stock market?

A degree simply does not make any one educated. It’s simply a qualification that may be highly lucrative in a job market. Job market simply works on the principle of demand and supply, as long as supply is limited demand is high and there is value for a particular product. Suppose we manage to give everyone a particular degree, whatever it may be, it won’t fetch the money it does on today’s date.

With such an elaborate introduction as to what is education and what is not, I would like to once again raise question on the wisdom of Indian government declaring education as fundamental right and trying to ensure compulsory education (so called) to all children. Frankly it would be foolhardy to believe that a syllabus consisting a bit of maths bit of science, arts and literature is a foolproof way to educate whole of India. Indian education system was borrowed from the English, who had in turn developed this system not as some universal education scheme but more or less for aristocracy and office bearers I won’t include scientist and inventors because most of them during those days were school dropouts. I am not challenging the efficacy of the scheme, a fair blend of all subjects till the pupil is reaches a stage of maturity to understand what is really his liking and thereafter specialization in those specified subject is absolutely an excellent concept. It is however not universal, it caters only for certain specific job requirements and it definitely does not impart any specific lesson in the other vital life skills that I elaborated above. Most people do learn it, but education system cannot take credit for it.

The second requirement of education that I mentioned that is ‘qualification’ is a market based requirement. Society is a fabric, a well oiled machine; for it to run well free market principles need to be adhered to. Simply put, where ever there is demand you need to supply it with replacement. Now if we look at our society we would notice that it essentially does not consists of people with graduation certificates and various university degrees in hand. There are various kinds of jobs equally important that needs to be addressed so that we have this machinery up and running. Individual may choose for himself what task he likes to perform, but cannot relieve himself of the responsibility of performing one. If he does not then he is a dead weight on the rest. Now the jobs with degree and qualification appear lucrative and better, that is simply because there is high demand for these and we still don’t have enough of them. It does not however imply that this demand has no limits or saturation. They on reaching saturation will become less lucrative and excess products’ (graduates) will be rejected by the market (society) and we will have unemployment.

In democracy however government tends to get motivated by policies of mass appeasement. In our society such white collared jobs are held at very high esteem everyone wants that for their kids. In such scenario it seems like exceptionally people friendly policy to go about declaring education a fundamental right and spending billions on it. All short term goals work in incumbent governments favor, building schools, creating employment (as in teachers and staff), providing meals and economic incentive, all seems such a philanthropic act that the government can boast about. Results are visible in five years makes it even more attractive, what people fail to see and governments simply do not want to see is that they are simply destroying the social fabric of a period 20 years from now. Luckily our government is so inefficient they would never be able to achieve any task they set forth ;we may not fact this problem in such acute a way.

Unemployment in white collared job sector will however be tremendously high in the times to come because of this non adherence to market principles. Other philanthropic argument which I need to counter is that governments actions ensure equality in society, even poor kids get an opportunity to study, well according to me had we had a non interfering government we would have had simply enough private schools coming up to meet the market demands. For sure no private school would give reverse incentive to teach children or force it down anybodies neck but definitely a competitive low price schooling market would have flourished in India. One which for sure would have been better than the present government schools for sure.
Lot of statistics are available on net freely for anyone to go through on net which depicts how government is mindlessly wasting billions of tax payers money on such self defeating philanthropic missions. Government however cannot be blamed for these in a democracy but we the people who somehow are led to believe that these actions would help in building a better nation. We overtly get philanthropic and emotional without understanding the true implication of such government steps. We are led to believe that only those who have entered the portals of schools are educated and more so with all these process we will build more prosperous and stable nation. It’s time we do a reality check on these stupid claims and refute it, not everyone perhaps but at least we the so called educated elites of India.

Update: I am adding this excerpt that happen to come across today….in brief words it echoes what I was trying to point out throughout my article. How a policy that seems excellent in short run especially in regards to a particular community is failing us in long run. Read it and try and evaluate the present education policy on Indian government in this perspective

In addition to these endless pleadings of self-interest, there is a second main factor that spawns new economic fallacies every day. This is the persistent tendency of men to see only the immediate effects of a given policy, or its effects only on a special group, and to neglect to inquire what the long-run effects of that policy will be not only on that special group but on all groups. It is the fallacy of overlooking secondary consequences.
Yet when we enter the field of public economics, these elementary truths are ignored. There are men regarded today as brilliant economists, who deprecate saving and recommend squandering on a national scale as the way of economic salvation; and when anyone points to what the consequences of these policies will be in the long run, they reply flippantly, as might the prodigal son of a warning father: “In the long run we are all dead.” And such shallow wisecracks pass as devastating epigrams and the ripest wisdom.- Henry Hazlitt ~ Economic in One Lesson

The distinction may seem obvious. The precaution of looking for all the consequences of a given policy to everyone may seem elementary. Doesn’t everybody know, in his personal life, that there are all sorts of indulgences delightful at the moment but disastrous in the end? Doesn’t every little boy know that if he eats enough candy he will get sick? Doesn’t the fellow who gets drunk know that he will wake up next morning with a ghastly stomach and a horrible head? Doesn’t the dipsomaniac know that he is ruining his liver and shortening his life? Doesn’t the Don Juan know that he is letting himself in for every sort of risk, from blackmail to disease? Finally, to bring it to the economic though still personal realm, do not the idler and the spendthrift know, even in the midst of their glorious fling, that they are heading for a future of debt and poverty?

In this lies the whole difference between good economics and bad. The bad economist sees only what immediately strikes the eye; the good economist also looks beyond. The bad economist sees only the direct consequences of a proposed course; the good economist looks also at the longer and indirect consequences. The bad economist sees only what the effect of a given policy has been or will be on one particular group; the good economist inquires also what the effect of the policy will be on all groups.