May
18
jaipur_the_pink_city
The Pink city of Jaipur turned to Blood Red, there were eight blasts to hurt people and kill them. Today, during the IPL cricket match at Sawai Man Singh Stadium, when IPL manager commented that this cricket match is signatory that Jaipur city never frowns and never accept defeat, I was wondering what the city is? Same words were spoken for Mumbai after the train bomb blasts and for Hyderabad after the Mecca Mosque blast. Lucknow, Varanasi, Ajmer, Delhi, no city stopped or turned into shambles after the bomb blasts every third month people suffer whole across India at some city or other. More than sixty-five innocents were killed, and nobody will ever come to know about why they were killed. Central and state government announced monetary compensations but that won’t change the fact that individual life is not safe under the state or central rule. For some days, media took it as frontline news, expressing concern about the failure of Indian intelligence and police and security systems, and then all again was lost in same news about Shahrukh Khan’s smoking a cigarette. So, is that all showing the strength of Jaipur city? Or it just shows the lack of concern of today’s media and the government about the Individuals, their safety and life?
Some Islamic law makers shouted that since Taslima Nasreen came from Kolkatta to Jaipur, the Islamic militants attacked Jaipur. But was Taslima Nasreen also a reason for Varanasi, Delhi, Lucknow, Ajmer and Hyderabad blasts?
Just like any other governmental sector, security system of India and police force is a flop show. It is a flop show because it lacks professionalism, it lacks competition, it lacks responsibility, it has basically no threat against failure, it is a monopoly. And like any other monopoly, it is destined for failure.
Not a single terrorist attack during the last 3 years has been traced out and solved. Obviously in such situations, there is no force on the terrorists against their activities.
bastiat-philosophy
“We” keep shouting that India is a sovereign state. By announcing India as a sovereign state “we” mean that India is a free and responsible state. It cannot be obligated for any commitment or bond and is free to take its own decision; it is financially responsible and independent and won’t permit any other nation to influence its freedom. On collective base, being sovereign feels great, it is a need and right of India as a nation, but what about citizens of India? How much sovereign they are and how safe?
A sovereign individual is self-reliant. He does not need government to provide for him nor tell him what to do. His word is his bond. He is responsible for his actions and expects to enjoy the fruit of his efforts. He demands true financial independence - free from unnecessary government interference, safe from spurious lawsuits and unscrupulous claims on his life and wealth. Living the life he desires. Apparently, it sounds ridiculous to talk about Sovereign Individual, free from state. An individual pays the compulsory taxes; he pays his contribution to the state because he is bound to pay for it. Yet he has virtually No Power to ask for the services he must get for the taxes he pays, because he has no options.
As a matter of fact, despite all its fantastic colors, the sovereign nation are nothing more than a fantasy, and the Government, what is it? Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else. It is a system, which loots everybody by one hand, and provides ointment by other.
Government has two hands, one is to receive from the citizens and other is to give. Government doesn’t produce anything, the citizens do, government collects and redistributes. It defines and instructs how the citizens should live and spend their products and earnings. But the government can take only, it cannot restore. Because the hands of the government are porous, they always retain partially, or sometimes wholly, of whatever they touch. It reduces the resources and makes it clumsy. It can never be the case that Government may take less from citizens and pay them more, it is bound to waste a part (or big part of the collected resources), yet we tend to let ourselves being looted by the government. We all know we lack security, we all know our security systems are not proficient and are unprofessional. Yet, we tend to avoid the question of the need of professional competitive security services and tend to rely on the monopoly of the government over security services.
First of all, government fails in catching the criminal, second many times the police itself is found guilty of bribes and corruption, third even if they catches the criminals, the courts takes lots of time, fourth, its in politicians hands, they can make new laws any day by passing an amendment. So basically, the monopoly of government over security system is bound to be inefficient because of its inability to check the corruption and lack of alertness. It is unable because hardly there is anyone who is not corrupt in government.
It is unable to check the pores of corruption because, the base of government itself is corrupt. Man recoils from troubles and sufferings, yet nature condemns him to the sufferings of poverty if he does not take the trouble to work. But some men tend to avoid both, the trouble to work, and the sufferings of privation. They opt for the third course, which is, to enjoy the labors of others. That is the root of all plunders whatever may be its form, whether that of wars, or impositions, violence, terrorism, restrictions, frauds, etc.
With changing times, the plunderers have changed their ways too. The oppressors don’t acts directly, nor does the oppressor use his own power against the victims. The government acts as a tool for the collectivistic tyrants. The government is to appease them, the collectivistic groups of religion, castes, gender and creeds. Government has no way to oppose the system of appeasement, because it counts for vote banks.
To avoid these plundering and loot, to avoid further mass-murders, it is necessary to remove this static heavy structure of government.
Security systems for the citizens will surely be improved, proficient and much more professional if the monopoly of government over security forces is denied and proper competitive market is opened up for the progressive security cells of cities and towns and villages. In absence of any liable competitor in security services, government acts as a monopolistic security agency without any fear to loose clients and hence the earnings. There is a need to provide sovereign citizenship, there is need to ask for individual safety, security and freedom, and that is possible only by providing the property rights and removing the compulsory taxation. The Individual should be free to choose for best security services he can get by paying the charges. The rational market forces will always improve the security process as the professionalism of the security agencies will provide those more clients and greater profits, furthermore, it will reduce the actual charges for security services and will make it possible for every citizen equally, without the removal of monopoly of government from the security services, professionalism can’t be expected, and without professionalism and commitment, these problems of terrorism, Naxalism, tribalism etc cannot be solved.
I heartily accept the motto, - “That government is best which governs least;” and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which I also believe, - “That government is best which governs not at all;” and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have.
— Henry David Thoreau
A government is the most dangerous threat to man’s rights: it holds a legal monopoly on the use of physical force against legally disarmed victims
Ayn Rand
Related Posts
1 viewsNo Responses to “Sovereign State versus Sovereign Citizen”
Leave a Reply
Hitesh Says:
May 19th, 2008 at 3:28 pmI can only say…… i agree..
Gagan Says:
May 19th, 2008 at 7:59 pmyea u r right !! may their souls rest in peace ::: :(
unpretentious_diva Says:
May 20th, 2008 at 12:07 am@gagan
I know you even didn’t bothered to read the complete post.
And once dead everything ends, the soul/individual exist only till he has conscious, after death there remains nothing.
The Impasse of Democracy—Voting is NOT a solution, it is a Killer | Reason for Liberty Says:
December 31st, 2008 at 7:53 pm[…] terms as the Fundamental right, while these similar enemies of liberty aborted the “right to property” because that provides an Individual the right of sovereignty. Once the Individual Rights and Liberty is based on the “right to property” as a […]
jj Smith Says:
August 2nd, 2009 at 1:48 amThe sovereign individual should be recognized as the basic sovereign state. After all the individual is the only life form and the only reason for a society is to make individual life better.
Any society that doesn’t recognize the right of the people to acquire the “actual” ownership of their homes and the land that is a part of that home is denying the right of individuals to exist and made the people slaves of government. The essence of ownership is you don’t have to pay anyone, including the state, to keep what you have. Home is where heart is and your home is your church.