[…] coercion, Freedom Versus Egalitarianism [↩]What really are Taxes, Reason for Liberty [↩]Laissez-Fairre Free market capitalism is right, communism, socialism, collectivism is wrong, and the…, The Middle Vice! […]

[…] Answer lies in the mysteries of Military Keynesianism.[1] Keynesian economics is what we call as Mixed economics or government controlled economy. According to Keynesian economics[2] the state should encourage economic growth and perk up […]

I fully agree with you.

Your idea of forcing people to give their hard earned money to teach kids of others itself is against freedom.

Supporting compulsory tax is against freedom because Taxes are Evil, Taxes means Slavery, Taxes are Robbery. Taxes are Destructive they harm citizen, poor middle class rich, all.
 http://www.reasonforliberty.com/reason/what-really-are-taxes.html

if a person puts up an idea of teaching poor orphan kids, and asks for voluntary contribution, it is valid genuine demand. people are free to donate or NOT to donate.
If a person argues that government should force people and loot their money to teach kids of other people, it is loot.

Any child can make a perfect circle now. But nobody says Capitalism is perfect system. It can though be proved that Capitalism is best amongst the three. It is good, mixed economy is bad, and socialism is ugly.

The examples are perfect, but your rhetoric was wrong.

When I had commented I had also mentioned that the excesses are both good and bad. If you don’t look at the negativities of a system (Like free market capitalism) and just want to impliment it on the basis of your belief, it may not end up being even moderately successful. In fact, you need to analyze what could go wrong with a system like free market capitalism with equal zest as you analyse the failures of the govt.intervention and middle path. If you say that free market capitalism is the best system which does not have any shortcoming’s at all, and people cannot exploit such a system, what ever they do -  it is not an analysis. It is called assumption. 

The examples provided to prove the point, are pathetic. But the arguments were good. The commenters, who have argued against the point in this post, have done enough justice but when replying, I feel that there is a huge degree of imposition of opinions by the author(s). 

Destination Infinity

You have said that Socialism has helped China achieved a high GDP growth rate.In the first

place,China is not a socialistic country.Socialism is a society in which all the property is

owned by the Government.Is that the case? In the second place,GDP statistics is not a

measure of the wealth of a nation.The very term GDP is wrong.One can’t measure the wealth of

a nation in any such manner.The attempts to measure wealth in that manner is childhish

dilettantism.It is obvious that if a good is available in excess,it’s price come down and

would approach zero if it is abundantltly available as air.Wouldn;t the National Income get

to zero if all goods are easily available as air? In China,a lot many websites which promote

individual liberty are banned including that of Lysander Spooner.At whose expense is

children given necessary training in the childhood? Shouldn’t such acts by Government mean

that some children whom the government decides to be geniuses are given special training at

the expense of other children who might be smarter in other regards? Is it fair to tax some

for the benefit of others? If such training benefits the society,why don’t people pay for it

voluntarily? Don’t be ridiculous. No one is of the opinion that there shouldn’t be

rules.There is no need for a government to impose rules and regulations.In an anarcho

Capitalist society,there would be private courts and defense agencies.Market is self

regulating.”Freedom come is responsibility” if an oft-repeated bromide.We don’t have any

responsibilities other than to respect the personal freedom of others.Why should we care

about the national interest? A nation or society is only a collection of individuals.To say

that national interest takes precedence over the interests of individuals,it would mean that

the rights of some individuals take precedence over the rights of others.Nothig can be more

evil or immoral than that.Communism is bad no matter how people implement it.A communist society can’t economically calculate due to its lack of pricing mechanism and profit motive.Property can’t nationalized without reducing incentives to produce and initiating force against people, and initiating force is wrong.It is stupid to think that Government can regulate the market.Market is a very complex process.It is self regulating.If some people commit crimes they will be punished by private courts and defense agencies.There is no need for a government to do that.If people are corrupt and they need to be regulated,then it would mean that government employees too are corrupt and they can’t be trusted to regulate people.

In fact classical liberalism and libertarianism are similar (though not exactly the same). But if we go deeper, you are correct. I am more of a classical liberal than libertarian (as I do support intervention in some areas). Now some of the people that you mentioned like Milton Friedman and Mises, were they more of libertarians or classical liberals? You would know that Mises wasn’t opposed to compulsory taxation in the strictest form. He was in fact even in favour of conscription (I am personally against it) which I believe would be against libertarian principles. It is very difficult to demarcate here is where liberalism ends and libertarianism begins. Though personally as you said, I don’t favour total libertarianism which will push me towards liberalism. In fact you had commented in my blog about Adam Smith. I agree with him on many places where he sees government intervention is required.

These frauds and misgivings are because interventionism by government, licensing, control of currency and central banks, and all other economic sector issues.

There is a article about economic meltdown, if you read it, you will understand what i am talking of.

The reality of nature is, as much as one follows freedom, he gets natural. You should try to understand it. Forcible regulations always causes corruption.

Free flowing ricer is always pure, stagnant water gets putrified and impure.

These recession and inflation comes through interventionism of government.

Failure of lehman etc is not that big issue BAIL OUT of those corrupt comapnies by GOVERNMENT through tax payers money is BIGGER fraud.
<<<<<U forgot that Lehman had declared themselves bakrupt so no bail out package for Lehman bros.
If u talk about AIG(American insurance Group) then its bailout was not just “take this money to save ur ***”, they had to follow US governments laws and regulations too from nowonwards.

See the basic funda of bailout package is - to save the jobs of lots of ppl who are directly or indirectly related with that organisation.
AIG is one of the biggest and oldest insurance gruop in US on which lots of ppl are dependenty.

now tell me from the bottom of your heart..whts wrong if govt. prevented mass unemployement and its ripple ill-effects on economy
from collected money? ..don’t u think bcoz of this decision - many more individuals are benefitted in terms of keeping the employement?

were they not individuals who paid the taxes to US govt. and expect govt. to make use of that tax money to give them new life?

I think if I start thinking from ur point of view then I guess as FM( which i am not) I guess I need to look at below things

1> wht is total tax collection from employees of AIG and those who are not employees of AIG but their services/employement indirectly depends on AIG business
2>I will only grant that much collected tax as bailout package to AIG coz I respect their individual rights of getting that tax money back for their own good (aftrall thats wht ppl expect from govt. i.e. to make use of tax money for their(citizens) wellfare ..isn’t it?

3> I will finally publish these facts and figures so that ppl like =you won’t accuse me that - I am misusing the other tax collectors money.

Do u think its viable solution in such scenario?

I think govt. shud really apply this approach to keep ppl like u from stop blaming govt. for their decision of usage of tax collectors money.

But sadly, our or US govt. looked at tax collection as collected money from citizens of country and not as individuals money.>>>>>>>

The thing is you are too prejudiced against freedom.

See it is true that NO man be it Hitler or Thackrey can be without any goodness in them.
it is just true that even they had some goodness,

And yes we cannot ignore the good of them. Yet we cannot ignore the wrong too.

And the wrong was their collectivist stand. If grouping up people on name of Mumbaikars Marathis etc and causing fights between madrasis and marathis or Mumbaikars and Biharis is not wrong, than what is wrong?

If killing of Rahul mahajan is not wrong than what is it?

If Gujrat riots were not wrong, if Opening of Babri Masjid by Rajeev gandhi and than Demolition of it by Advani was not wrong than what was it?

people got killed GP, it was crime against humanity.

One should understand the Importance of Individual existence, you or me cannot start killing someone just because he is Muslim or hindu should we?

if you agree that yes we should not, then it shows that you accept that crowd mentality is NOT good, and it seldom causes havoc, we always suffered from it in some way or other.

You also agree that welfare states are a failure (for the same cause of crowd mentality)

You also agree that India is mixed economy state and China is suffering.

You say India should be like china, what you forget that since the economic recession in America, China is also starving.

What you ignore is America is also socialist and not a free-country.
So what you do not agree for?

Do you not agree for the fact that the crime of one should not be exsposed on others?

You say mixed economy is good, and than you name Lehman AIG etc., they are the failures of Mixed economy.,

America is as Mixed economy as China or India is.

Yet American economy is more market oriented than India or China, hence America is richest and most prosperous. China is more free and capitalist than India hence china is richer than India.

The difference between China India and America is, China is closed exploited community, they have attained economic freedom to some extent, more than Indian less than American, but their social freedom is ZERO.

Neither America, nor India nor China are freee all of them are trying to be free.

Now about competition, it is a known fact that more free a country becomes, more rich it gets.

India is example, we were poor at verge of bankruptcy in 1992 we adopted liberalization, now we are getting richer.

These recession and inflation comes through interventionism of government.

Failure of lehman etc is not that big issue BAIL OUT of those corrupt comapnies by GOVERNMENT through tax payers money is BIGGER fraud.

But it doesn;t matter, owning a gun cannot be a crime. If honest citizen cannot hold a safety gun than who will save him from criminals? Noone.

Freedom comes with responsibility and government is NOT needed for understanding that responsibility, if allow freedom, person understand it better.

Interventionism of government makes freedom free without any responsibility for some.

its about loot of Individual and his exploitation. He can surely live honestly and peacefully in a free market, but government doesn’t allow him.

About your ideas of competing America China etc, its useless, we cannot divide human with boundaries.

If killing of Rahul mahajan is not wrong than what is it?

If Gujrat riots were not wrong, if Opening of Babri Masjid by Rajeev gandhi and than Demolition of it by Advani was not wrong than what was it?

people got killed GP, it was crime against humanity.

<<<<<<<I truely respect individual freedom but that doesn’t mean people shud not follow laws and rules which are meant for welfare of everyone.

As I earlier mentioned so called fights between Maharshtrians and North indians are the result of hatred spread by biased media.
If u talk about killing of Rahul Mahajan - then it wasn’t a cold blooded mruder but
the result of unfortunate circumstances created by himself by taking law and order in hands by endangering public lives.
Now, if same guy had killed many ppl in bus then ppl wud have cried about inefficiency of Mumbai police in handling the situation and maintaining the peace.
Alos, wht was he thinking  holding passengers at gun point in bus? …….the point is - govt rules and regulations are means for saftey of its citizens ..u cant defy then and cry foul
when govt. compell u to follow them in the name of freedom???. I respect individual freedom but always remember freedom comes with responsibilities.>>>

And I don’t rant about Thakarey family. U wanted to know my views about them and I mentioned in my comments …as simple as that .

Only when your interpretation of capitalism is implemented successfully, will it be considered as a right system. So all the best for your endeavours!

Thus total 2300 years to get a democratic partial sort of freedom for Indian individuals.

With progressive evolution, development increases. I am sure that from present state of sovereign state to sovereign Individual free society, free market, we will take further less time.

I am talking of Libertarianism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism
I am talking of John Locke http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_locke

I am talking of Austrian School of Economics. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_School

I am talking of Von Mises http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_von_Mises

If you get on those links, you will understand I am talking of allot more, be it Rothbard, or Milton Friedman.

I am talking of Rockwell, Ron paul, I am talking of Indian libertarians too there are many. http://www.mises.org/

Now about your question, civilization is constant process of evolution.

Was it possible for you if you were there in past before Wright brothers to think about flying in sky? Now we have Airplanes.

Was it possible for India to think anything like democracy and partial freedom some 200 years ago?

Now we have evolved to this much that we are partially free, no feudalism, no kingdom, no fighting within dictators. It was not possible even 150 years ago to think about such situations. But we achieved it.

Civilization is a process of providing privacy for a man from men.

We will certainly achieve freedom.

How and when? time will say, endeavors never stops.