Pakistan is an Islamic nation, the Pakistan government and judiciary follows Islamic laws, they ban and censor things as per Islam.
Tourism is one of the major sources of income for Pakistan but because of all those raucous of terrorism and military rule and wars, tourism is deeply hurt.
In order to revamp the tourism industry, a Senate panel has asked the government to send the newly-inducted Tourism Minister, Maulana Attaur Rehman, on a visit to verdant beaches in South France and Switzerland to get modern ideas of promoting tourism industry that contributes immensely to Pakistan’s economy.
The thing to be mentioned is, beaches of France and Switzerland are famous for the topless and one-piece bikinis. The exhibitionism and freedom of expression on those beaches is at extreme peaks, and that is one of the main reasons for the success of those beaches as the major tourist attraction whole round the world.
Pakistan also has a huge shoreline, so can Pakistan ministry adopt the “modern” and innovative ways to strengthen tourism and give any sort of competition?
Exhibitionism is almost impossible in Pakistan especially under those Islamic laws.
Moreover, Islam prohibits Liquor, thus alcohol is completely banned in all governmental resorts and hotels.
The new Tourism Minister Maulana Rehman recently decided to ban the sale of liquor to foreigners in government-owned hotels and motels because according to him, it is immoral. How will he get the idea of exhibitionism on beaches?
According to the Pakistan law, Muslims cannot buy liquor, but government had issued license for Non-Muslims to buy alcohol if they want. Yet with the new decisions of Tourism Minister Rehman, no government hotel or motel can sell alcohol anymore. In addition to that, Maulana Rehman wants to restrict private hotels too and apply ban on alcohol thoroughly.
As per Rehman, no religion allows the consumption of alcohol, hence even foreigners has no religious sanction to buy alcohol. I am sure he is completely aware of the term Atheist. As Pakistan is an Islamic republic, Rehman stresses that they cannot allow consumption of Liquor, although he agrees that he cannot restrict five star hotels, but he enjoys that idea too.
Other ministers of Pakistan does not agree with Mr Rehman though,

“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 [↩]

We all are capable of having emotions. Emotions give us much valuable information about ourselves and how we perceive the world. Wrong emotions are usually the result of wrong ideas held by a person. Consider a person who admires a “successful bureaucrat”. I seriously doubt whether he would have the same emotions towards that bureaucrat if he has learned Free Market economics and have understood that bureaucrats are unnecessary for the proper functioning of the society, and that they do great harm. His admiration is likely to turn into hatred once he learns these facts. Or consider a person who thinks that advertising is harmful and leads to a wastage of resources. He would feel negative emotions towards advertisements. It is likely that his emotions would change if he learns about the benevolent effects of advertising. He would start enjoying advertisements.
A lot many people sympathize with collectivism and its several variants. It is also a shocking fact that so many people admire dictators. Why does a large part of the population admire dictators and hate businessmen? There are several reasons. Envy is truly one of the reasons why they hate businessmen. People simply can’t accept the fact that there are some men who earn more than they do. The morality of altruism is another reason. They sense that a businessman is not an altruist and is acting in his long term rational self interest. In their eyes, everything a dictator does is not for him, but for his subjects. It doesn’t occur to them that whatever the dictator does are not for the well being of the people, but for a state of affairs which would lead to his well being. They fail to see that people can help the society only if they act in their own self interest. They stick to their code of altruism like a neurotic even when it is well evident that the consequences of altruism are disastrous.
Most people hate responsibility. They want someone to guide them on the right path. They want their survival guaranteed to them. This is part of the reason why they hate liberty. Too dull to see the fact that economic freedom is essential for economic security, they see a conflict between liberty and security. Liberty in their eyes means a free hand for the rugged individualist- the capitalist who exploits the masses. Morris and Linda Tannehill have explained it clearly:

“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!

A few days back a politico-philosophical debate enraged in this very site as to who is to be blamed for innocent civilian deaths in course of a military operation, the political masters or the military executioners. The debate however did not encompass another very important facet of the free democratic nations, the role of citizens. If we are men of free nation and it’s with our free will we elect our representatives to rule our nations on our behalf, are we too not party to any crime done by our representatives. If we were to ask someone (politicians) kill on our behalf, and the killer (Military) is being trained and armed by money provided by us, aren’t we guilty in part for the crime that he commits. Military heads are accountable to their political masters and they in turn to the citizens of the nations they represent. It seldom happens in a democratic set up that a nation goes into war or undertakes military operations without public will in its favor.

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 [↩]

“All property is theft”, said Proudhon. The very statement contradicts itself. An act could be called theft only if it involves taking the property of another which is legitimately owned. If no one legitimately owns any property, then how could it be termed as theft? If one could extort a grain of truth out of Proudhon’s statement, it would be that property was largely acquired through wrong means in the past. In India, in most cases land was forcefully appropriated by kings and distributed to Zamindars for the ease of tax collection. The Zamindars have no just claim to the land they acquired in this manner. There were cases of feudalism and slavery in the past. The crucial question is whether ownership claims to land possessed by the descendant of the looter have legitimacy or not. Should it be handed back to the descendants of the victims?
A few days back a reader of my blog posed this question to me: What if an industrialist who is creating wealth and providing jobs for millions is the descendant of a person who earned his wealth by loot? Should his right to property be respected?
In all my readings I haven’t found a libertarian thinker deals with this aspect morally other than Murray Rothbard. Ayn Rand is said to have provided a moral basis to Capitalism. But she doesn’t deal with a crucial aspect –The initial allocation of property rights. Capitalism is a politico-economic system based on private property rights and this sort of evasion is hard to digest.
The question I was asked is quite valid. Take the case of Dalits. Most of them are poor. In the past property was acquired through wrong means and it can’t be denied that it has played a role in the poverty they suffer from. The same could be said of blacks in the United States. Should anything be done about it? I am not a fan of Arundhati Roy and was a strong critic of her views, but I shall quote a few interesting lines from Roy’s An Ordinary Person’s Guide To Empire

“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.

So what change were they expecting? Is this the Change, which Obama promised, a change of place of attack from Iraq to Pakistan?
On 23rd of January President Obama ordered Drone attack on Pakistan.¹
Since September, the US is estimated to have carried out about 30 such attacks, killing more than 220 people, and now, the count will be increased many folds.
Is not it proving that the President does not change the office the office changes the president?
Is not USA Imperialist now?
Are these killings of innocent human beings justified just because now the owner of the killing machine is a democrat liberal socialist? Is he just displaying the effect of Military Keynesianism?
On 26th of January 2009, Obama ordered missile attacks again on Pakistan. Despite all urging by Pakistan leaders, Obama as a ruthless killer warned that he would not flinch from bombing directly in Pakistan, if he get information about militants are there in Pakistan.²
Does not he have information that there are innocent helpless victims of his madness also? Are not they Human but cattle’s to be butchered for the pleasure of Obama the great tyrannical warrior?
Where are all those anti-war Americans and all those anti-American Indians now who were shedding tears at the demise of Saddam Hussein? Was Saddam deserving their sympathy more than what innocent Pakistanis deserves as their basic right?
Obviously, Obama is no better than George W. Bush was; there is no change all are being driven by same Military Keynesianism, after all, all these bombings, missiles attacks are increasing US government spending isn’t it? So Paul Krugman may stress that all these killings are sad, but economically they may be profitable, as Krugman said after the 9/11 attack.³
The media says that these strikes will help Obama portray himself as a leader who, though ready to shift the balance of American power towards diplomacy, is not afraid of military action. Ohh yes it is increasing the government spending, the Keynesian solution to economic crisis.
Yet the major question is Can one claim that Obama is a killer just because he ordered attacks on Pakistan border?
Is Obama a legitimate murderer? It is an age old philosophical dilemma. How can we claim that the President who ordered is the killer and not the soldiers? Obama ordered the bombing, but he was not the person who bombed. He did not kill anybody, nor was his motive was to kill innocent people. The soldier, who actually bombed can be termed as the killer, because he knew his actions would certainly kill innocent people, or was he not certain about it? Moreover, the missiles on America were bombed by unmanned aircraft. That is, no soldier actually attacked on any Pakistani.
They just programmed the missiles to drop at a certain area, which they assumed is free of any Pakistani civilian and full of Jihadist terrorists. The intention of those soldiers was not to kill innocent civilians but to attack the Jihadists. Therefore, here is the contradiction.
Yet, the question arises that when one kills a person using a gun, we do not blame the gun as a killer, we blame the user of the gun, as the killer. Therefore, why should not we consider the person who ordered the shooting as a killer, when we know that the shooter was a part of his modus operandi? The problem is, when a person uses a gun to kill someone, the gun cannot think, gun is not alive. Gun is neutral and cannot commit any crime. Gun is very dependent on the user.
It is certainly not the case when Obama orders the soldiers to bomb in Pakistan or on border. Soldiers are not guns, bombs, or deadly missiles. They are not tools; they are rational living human beings. They can think what they are doing and they are not slave to anyone, and even if they are under service, they have right to deny.
When a soldier kills an enemy, he gets praise and accolades, it is termed as his courage. When a soldier kills a civilian, an innocent person, it is his crime.
Furthermore, Obama never ordered killing innocent civilians. Thus, to blame Obama as a murderer is wrong.
Now consider this, why should not Obama be termed as killer? Answer is, his intention was not to kill civilians, but it was to kill Jihadist terrorists. Secondly, he was not directly involved. He just initiated an action by ordering. There were probabilities that the soldier might have denied accepting Obama’s order, as he was free.
That is, the probability of denial of orders makes Obama blame less. Yet, once a soldier accepts the orders, it becomes his free-will to attack, so one can blame the soldiers. Yet, in this case, the soldiers programmed a machine to bomb at a certain place. Their intention was not to kill civilians, and there were ample probabilities that there might have been no civilian causalities. Thus, by the same logic, one cannot blame soldiers too for the killings. So, was it all just an accident that caused deaths in Pakistan?
The problem is probability cannot be the base of innocence. Let us say, a person deeply in love with Russian Roulette, uses a single bullet in the revolver and points it at the hand of the victim whom he is going to kill. He announces that if the victim dies at the first shot, then it is his death, but if he survives, then it is his life. The killer will not take the second shot. Here, the situation is just similar. The murder is very probabilistic, and also, the intention of the killer is not to kill, but to enjoy Russian Roulette. So one victim, one bullet and one shot (while there could have been 6 shots), what is the probability that the victim may be killed?
Yet, probability cannot decide the crime. If the person dies in this extravagant endeavor of the Russian Roulette player, than it is certified murder, we cannot term it as an accident.
Thus, the soldiers cannot be said victimless because it was very less probabilistic that the unmanned aircrafts and missiles will kill innocent civilians of Pakistan. They obviously bear certain moral responsibility for the result of their extravaganza. Similarly, Obama also was aware of the probabilistic mishap, thus he also bears a certain moral responsibility for the murder of Pakistani civilians.
Now consider this, while knowing the probabilistic chances of death, can a person play the same Russian Roulette game with himself or his beloved one say his son?
What will a President of USA do if somehow certain terrorists enter in White House near to the room where his wife and children are resting? Will he order bombing on White House while knowing that it may kill his family, there are probabilities? No, he will not do so. Even if Obama did not wanted to kill civilians, even if the deaths were all probabilistic, we cannot term Obama blameless if he imposed a risk on others, which he himself might have denied to accept for his family or his own self.
Conclusion: A change might have been a try to negotiate with Jihadists in Iraq, Iran or Afghanistan, a try to spread peace and liberty. Obama is No Change!
He is as murderous and anti-humanity as Bush was, all his promises of CHANGE were false. Obama may not be termed as murderer, yet he owns the burden of crime along with soldiers equally. USA is still working under Military Keynesianism, yet we cannot say that dead Keynes is the real criminal.

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 [↩]

“Do not ever say that the desire to “do good” by force is a good motive. Neither power-lust nor stupidity are good motives.”, said the great philosopher, Ayn Rand.
Let us examine the quote itself. How much of it is true?
I don’t think anyone would argue that power lust is a good motive.
Is stupidity a good motive? Whether stupidity is good or evil is a different matter altogether. Stupidity is not a motive, let alone a bad motive. Stupidity is an intellectual state.
An overwhelming majority of the people believe socialists are motivated by good motives. People usually think that the desire to take money from the wealthy for redistribution is a good motive. Karl Marx is thought of as a naive, impractical visionary. These people fail to realize that there is nothing good, in and by itself. An act, motive or idea could be considered good or evil based on its relation to reality. If an idea bears no relation to reality, then it has to be discarded and considered evil. The desire to help the poor through dishonorable means is not a good motive. No. The ends don’t justify the means. It is not just the means we are against, it is the end itself. No man has a rightful claim to the wealth produced by another.

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?

On the advent of 60th year of India’s inauguration as a republic, let me show you how slavery is still looming on Indians under the head of collectivism.
Indian constitution ascertains certain rights for all Individuals of the country. It has been explained many times that not a single right provisioned in the Indian Constitution can be maintained without recognizing the right to property as the fundamental right.
If you want to express freely, you need your own property premises to express, if you are a nudist and you wish to dance nude, you may do it in your home, or in a membership club which allows you to enjoy and express yourself freely at a certain charge. If you wish to roam naked freely on street, it certainly is not possible as street is not your property.
Indian Constitution does not recognize any sort of property rights and that is why the basic natural rights are not achievable for Indians, India recognizes certain rights based on emotions rather than reason.
As for example, a painter certainly have a right to paint, yet he do not have right to paint whatever he want. He has to be sure that his painting may not hurt any other person’s religious, moral or any other sort of emotions. If he fails to take care of various kinds of rational/irrational emotions of various kinds of people, he can be attacked and brutally beaten and the government in place of securing that painter’s or writer’s or actor’s right to express, will force him/ her out of state/country, because if he lives in India, it hurts the emotions of certain sect of Indians. it happened in Mangalore, Karnataka this time
On the eve of 24th January, about 15 to 20 activists, allegedly connected to Sri Ram Sena, entered forcibly into a private-pub late on Saturday night and assaulted boys and girls dancing there, accusing the teens of behaving in an “obscene manner”.¹
Obviously, it was hurting their emotions and hence the boys and girls had no right to enjoy party and dance.
People and especially Government² may try to colour this incidence as a result of religious dogmatism and an assault on democracy, but it is not so.
The basic problem is the lack of importance of Individual freedom and right to property in India and Indians. The attackers had no respect for the property right of the owner of the pub who allowed the young boys and girls to party. The attackers had no respect for the right of the boys and girls to express themselves and entertain.
Indians actually do not recognize the right of free speech and expressions.
Just some months ago, an Orkut user Krishna Kumar Vaid³ faced severe situation of imprisonment for nearly 5 years and fined up to 1 lakh rupees if found guilty. He was accused of scrapping some message against a political leader.
Thus, for a victimless crime, he was threatened of imprisonment and monetary fine, although numerous rapists and murderers are never punished (Afzal Guru).⁴ Yet, as Indian rights are based on emotions, a person cannot say that He hates a particular leader, because that may hurt the fans of that leader. So if I do not like Shahrukh Khan, I cannot iterate it on net, otherwise some Shahrukh Khan fans may attack me or sue me too.
It is democracy, the tyranny of majority over minority, the individual being the smallest minority.
Until Indians will not understand and recognize the Importance of property, and property rights, they will not be able to possess and enjoy any right because property right is the fundamental right.
Now when we have seen that even at the 60th year of inauguration of Republic of India, Indians lacks any Individual rights and are slaves of emotional whims of rulers and tyrants, let us dwell upon the constitution for a while.
Indian constitution provides certain directive principles. I would like to discuss Article 21, Article 38(2).
Article 21—Protection of life and personal liberty—No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.
Article 38(2) —The State shall in particular, strive to minimise the inequalities in income, and endeavour to eliminate inequalities in status, facilities and opportunities, not only amongst individuals but also amongst groups of people residing in different areas or engaged in different vocations.
If Article 21 provides Individual freedom/personal liberty for a citizen to endeavour his best for his betterment, progresses, and profit, which obviously is his natural right, how can the state try to equalize the income of all?
We must understand that STATE DO NOT PRODUCE OR CREATE WEALTH.
Inequality of wealth and incomes is an essential feature of the market economy. It is the realization that the consumers are supreme by giving them the power to force all those engaged in production to comply with their orders. It forces all those engaged in production to the utmost exertion in the service of the consumers. It makes competition work. He who best serves the consumers profits most and accumulates riches. The efficient and better worker earns more than the lazy and naive worker, one who produces more gets more value it is the natural order.
In an examination of maths, one who is better in maths and works hard gets more marks than the other who is not at all interested in maths. How can the teacher make marks of the entire students equal?
The teacher can do so by destroying education.
The idea of providing equal income for the Honest, skilled hard working labor and the dishonest, naive, lazy labor itself is corrupt and farce. It is Individual’s liberty to work more, work better and smart, gain more profits, and be rich. If he is forced to remain equal to naive, unintelligent lazy worker, than it is exploitation of the hard worker. Thus, Article 21 and Article 38(2) are contradictory.
As state always tries to follow Article 38(2), it is bound to loot exploit and harass Individuals. Those who suggest that state should try to improve the lazy or naive so that they may increase their productivity equal to the superior workers, forgets that the superior workers will also strive for further betterment and improvement. Hence, without exploitation, equality is not possible. We are not equal biologically, and we can never become equal. Since government forcefully tries to make us equal, we all are slaves and not free Individuals, and our society suffers from corruption, discontentment, exploitation, forgery, frauds, scams, reservations and all other traits of Socialism and communism
Since Indian constitution stands on the corrupt ideals, India faces maximum corruption and Immorality.
I will discuss more of Indian Constitution and the falsehood of Constitutional premises further in this month of celebrations of Indian Republican.
As a borne Indian, it is my personal will to make India a free nation, a nation of free individuals, and I will keep striving for it always, and the first step towards a Free India is to accept that India is not Free, nor is the Indians are Free.

“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 [↩]