Dec
5
Contrary to what a lot of people in west think about India and Gandhi, I know that not everybody in India likes Gandhi. In fact I grew up hating Gandhi because I was so much indoctrinated in statism that although the State tries its best to preach Gandhism, the obvious disjunct between being loyal to a state and being Gandhian pacifist makes no sense. Its really a funny thing that on 2nd of October each year, the government celebrates Gandhi’s birthday and Gandhian philosophy by prohibiting sale of liquor all across the nation, you might as well celebrate Valentine’s day by hanging all the intercaste lovers, Buddha’s birthday by drinking animal blood, and Channukka by saluting to Hitler. Even more funnier fact, recently someone filed a public interest litigation in the Supreme Court of India, requesting to make insulting Gandhi illegal and any individual who insults Gandhi be thrown in prison. People just don’t understand what Gandhian philosophy is all about.
Now when I finally understood the libertarian philosophy and the principle of non-initiation of aggression, the question which really bugs me is how do we get the liberty which we so much deserve. Its impossible to physically fight the state, its so big, and not just that, it has the most legitimacy that even though they could do the worst things to the humanity, it will all be seen in the good light of justice. I have been closely following the fight for achieving liberty in our lifetime going on in New Hampshire by the members of Free State Project. Its because of my desire to figure out the most effective way to fight the state, I have been forced to reconsider Gandhian philosophy in a new light of libertarianism.
The question in front of us is, how do we fight the mammoth in front of us. The problem isn’t only on defeating a powerful enemy, but how to eliminate a righteous enemy. Of course the state isn’t right, but it has the color of righteousness. The people believe it to be right, and just people believing that state is being excessive doesn’t solve our problems, or motivates people against the state. There are many people who believe in conspiracies regarding US government behind the 9/11 attacks, but if you ask them if should we eliminate state or eliminating the state would be a good idea to solve the problem of an evil force from our lives, most of them will answer “No, we just need to CHANGE the people in the system”.
We all realize that even if we had bigger guns than state, we could still not kill the spirit of the state, it will rise again. People would want to recreate the state. So we get this feeling that the state cannot be defeated with violence, and using violence against the state sounds like the worst possible method to fight it, but then the libertarian philosophy comes into the picture which says that its acceptable to respond to aggression with (same amounts of)aggression and not many of us really believe that if a robber comes to our house and wants to rape your wife, then allowing him to rape your wife and then turning your daughter in too, will change his mind in any way.[1]
We realize that responding to a common thief with aggression makes sense, but responding to state with aggression does not make any sense. How is that? Is this an inconsistency with the libertarian philosophy(which suggests responding violence with violence as a just solution) or with the philosophy of pacifism(which suggests responding violence with non-violence).
When I reconsidered the Gandhian philosophy I realized something very important something which the Indian society and the government greatly distorts about his philosophy, that Gandhi used these philosophy against a similar environment. He was fighting a mighty British Empire which had ruled India for over 150 years until then. There were Indian soldiers in British Army, fighting FOR the government against their own people. Contrary to what we might believe, it wasn’t until 1930[2] that people in India made an official declaration of getting rid India of British Rule, until then it was all about home-rule or more autonomy. Until 1930 people the idea that India can be completely independent on its own was too far-fetched and radical.
The Indian people are generally very peaceful, and the call to everyone to raise weapons against the British government would not have gathered many people behind you.
What Gandhi managed to do was, he declared that he would not raise a weapon against any individual, because of this, he gained a upper moral status against the British Government. The British rule in India wasn’t really like the current US occupation in Iraq and Afghanistan, but more like current US occupation of South Korea and Japan. People continued to live their lives, do business being unaffected by the foreign army, living under British law, courts, using roads, and railroads built by British Empire. In fact India got independence in 1947 and until 1st Jan 1930 they weren’t even fighting for completely independence. I must point it out that Gandhi had been fighting the British Rule in India since 1915, before the official declaration for complete independence, Indians were merely fighting for a self-rule, like Libertarian Party and Republican Party striving for a Small government(and call for complete independence being equal to call for no government).
When Gandhi declared that he would not commit violence against any individual, leave alone British government, he made himself more righteous than the British Government. If British Government orders to shoots a violent revolutionary, its soldiers would readily comply, they will follow the orders because in their own head they are thinking that they are preserving themselves, if they don’t shoot this violent revolutionary he will shoot them. So in their own head, it becomes a very easy decision to make. On the other hand, when the government gives the order to shoot someone like Gandhi, they don’t want to shoot a guy who would not harm an ant. Even if someone DOES end up shooting Gandhi, one fallen revolutionary may raise 10 more revolutionaries, but one fallen Gandhi, raises 1000s of people to take his place, because most people do not sympathize with the violent revolutionary, even if they do they rationalize it as he chose the path of gun, and he was shot down by a gun, but when Gandhi, a guy who chose to never commit violence, is killed by the state, then people realize that nobody is safe, there must be something greatly wrong with the state.
The British government never tried to kill Gandhi, because they understood it pretty well that if they did it, their empire will lose all its legitimacy, and the only way a few handful people can rule millions of people is through legitimacy(or the color of legitimacy).
So what is the guiding principle here, how do we establish consistency between being Gandhian and being libertarian. It all comes down to a simple principle which makes Gandhian non-violence consistent with libertarianism. If the aggressor’s right and wrong are twisted around, his polarities are reversed, if what you consider right is wrong for them, and what you consider is wrong is right for them, then there is no way you could win against them by responding to their aggression with more aggression.
Just consider it for a minute. If a thief tries to steal something you own, he knows he is committing a crime, he is trying to acquire something he does not own. If you punish him for his crime or acquire restitution, then that would be a possible way to deal with that thief. But if a government employee comes to your property to take away your house for non-payment of property taxes, he thinks he is just following the orders, and he is the righteous individual, you are the aggressor against the society by not paying your property taxes like everybody else.
If you try to punish that government employee, by trying to take away his property, him and his peers will just come after you because now its a matter of their own life and property, and they will commit more aggression against you.
If a cop tries to arrest you for some made up victim-less crime and you shoot him back, you don’t defeat the state, his son, his wife, his friends will all see him has a brave martyr shot by some violent drug dealer in the line of duty. His son would want to grow up and become like him. On the other hand, if you are a non-violent person like Gandhi and all you did was stood in front of the police station and tried to smoke some marijuana, first of all no officer would shoot you, but if some officer DOES shoot you, he ends up taking this huge guilt over his conscience whether he really stands for a right thing or not, similarly his family will see him as a murderer and not a brave police officer who shot a pacifist marijuana drug user. Even if nobody understands what you really stand for, the first question a cop’s wife would ask, ‘what wrong thing was that guy doing?’, ‘Was he selling marijuana?’, ‘Was he making profit by selling drugs?’, ‘Was he threatening your life in any way?’, and they see what really happened, nobody would really respect that cop in long term.
You will realize that Gandhi was a libertarian(there are many other libertarian things about Gandhi, but he wasn’t a statist), who mastered the art of fighting the aggressor with convoluted morals. We the contemporary libertarians have managed to figure out that the State is the aggressor, but what we have not managed to figure out is how to fight this aggressor. Everything Gandhi did, was against state. Every Gandhian principle becomes libertarian if you consider it a libertarian principle applicable against an aggressor with twisted right and wrong.
Gandhi said “If someone slaps you, don’t slap him back, but turn the other cheek around”. Imagine it to be like this, “if a cop slaps you, don’t slap him back, but turn your other cheek around”.
Gandhi said “Hate the Sin, Love the Sinner”, imagine it to be like “Hate the State, Love the Statists or people who form the State”.
When I first started understanding these things, there were many things which did not make any sense, but over the time it all made sense. For example, there is a common objection that Gandhi was anti-technology and materialism, the truth is, Gandhi held those positions because these rules were only applicable to soldier against aggression. The state relies on punishing you by throwing you in a prison and devoiding you of all materials, if you devoid yourself of those materials, the state has left with no recourse to punish you in any way other than to come out of the cloak of morality and openly aggress against you(and like the cop who shot a peaceful marijuana protester in front of the police station) and lose all the morality and respect it claims, or to just let you go(like the British did) and let you build more people against the system.
Contrary to what you many people think, Gandhi only ran his non-cooperation movement for less than 2 years(out of his 30+ years of Satyagraha), he ended the movement in the middle long before he achieved his goals because a bunch of protesters in a small town in India, burnt a police station and many cops in it[3]. By cancelling the non-cooperation movement he became immensely unpopular among the extremist revolutionaries because right when the movement was going so strong Gandhi ended it. When this incident was portrayed in a Bollywood movie, this caused people watching this movie to chant anti-Gandhi slogans at the end of it. It didn’t make any sense to me, but now it does. What Gandhi did was, he took away any, and by that I mean ANY accusation British could bring upon Gandhian followers as being violent people. If Gandhi had allowed the movement to continue and allowed more incidences of violence to go on, then that would have made the British government a good incentive to violently deal with all the people taking part in the non-cooperation movement. The wikipedia page of Chauri Chaura says “Many modern historians view the Chauri Chaura incident as a minor episode of violence, which while regrettable, did not merit the cancellation of a nation’s demand for political freedom.”, its a sad thing that most modern historians do not understand the core reason behind the philosophy of non-violence.
Gandhian philosophy of non-violence is not for weak people, but surprisingly this is a common viewpoint that Gandhian philosophy worked because it gave weak people a weapon to fight with, it is not true. Gandhian philosophy of non-violence and Satyagraha isn’t a weapon for weak people, its a weapon by which strong people eliminate the legitimacy of a powerful aggressor.
Footnotes:Ahimsa is the highest ideal. It is meant for the brave, never for the cowardly. – Mahatma Gandhi
- Gandhi said that if someone slaps you on one cheek, turn your other cheek around and make your enemy realize how he is doing the wrong thing. [↩]
- It was in 26 Jan 1930 when in Indian National Congress and Nationalists resolved that they will achieve a complete independent rule in India. Purna Swaraj declaration. Until then most of the political parties favored a dominion status for India, like South Africa, Australia, Canada, Irish Free State, New Zealand etc [↩]
- Chauri-Chaura, Bihar [↩]
Related Posts
408 views7 Responses to “Was Gandhi a Libertarian?”
Leave a Reply
Gauhar Kachchhi Says:
December 5th, 2009 at 10:44 pm@Unpretentious Diva,
When the Jallianwala Bagh Massacre took place in 1919, Gandhi was a small time leader experimenting with Satyagrah.
After the massacre, Gandhi said, “The impossible men of India shall rise and liberate their Motherland.”
Gauhar Kachchhi´s last blog ..GHAC Trek to Sheshachalam Mountain Ranges near Tirupati
Renegade Division Says:
December 7th, 2009 at 1:45 amIn no way my understanding of Gandhi is complete, but I DID take a look at Jalianwala Bagh when I was researching about Gandhi.
My point here isn’t to glorify Gandhism as an ideal form of Libertarianism or portray Gandhi as a champion of Liberty, rather to review him in the light of Libertarianism, and how his method is the most effective method of fighting an aggressor.
It doesn’t matter what Gandhi said about Jalianwala Bagh massacre, is Ron Paul less libertarian because he refuse to vote an condemnation of atrocities committed by the Burmese government(his vote was the only vote against the 450+ congressmen voting for it)?
If an American president refuses to invade Germany where Hitler is killing millions of Jews, is he more libertarian or less libertarian(its a question and I want you to answer it)?
What matters is what really happend in Amritsar preceding Jalianwala Bagh massacre. The days preceding Jalianwala Bagh Massacre(JBM), there were numerous acts of violence committed against the British living in the city of Amritsar. Women were attacked, an atmosphere of fear was created for the Europeans. The response wasn’t unprovoked, there were many arrests, firing, deaths of people. This was followed by greater violence from the people of Punjab, telegraph lines were cut, Railway lines were cut, government buildings were burnt and Europeans killed.
Then the next day they held a large demonstration in Jalianwala Bagh, British and Indian soldiers did not flinch an eyelid before they shot all the demonstrators. Why? Because they did not believe they were firing at peaceful people, they believed they were firing at a violent mob gathering. And that’s my point of the whole article.
About other non-gandhian freedom fighters being Libertarians, then I don’t wanna go into that, lemme repeat it for the second time, you are letting your hatred of Gandhi blind an objective observation of his ideology and what he tried to achieve. This is not a defense of Gandhi, but merely an attempt to understand his ideology and how modern day libertarians can use it.
Even though the protesters of Amritsar weren’t the ideal Gandhi peace protesters and are not an example of what I am trying to talk here, it did create a massive wave of unrest against the British government. When Amritsar unrest started, the British had 1 rebel city in front of them, when JBM took place they had many many rebel cities in front of them and by 1920-22(Non-cooperation movement) they had whole nation against them.
And I am glad Gandhi declined to favor clemency to Bhagat Singh by using his favors with British Govt. Would Bhagat Singh a violent revolutionary accepted to give names of all his accomplices in order to defend a non-violent Gandhian revolutionary? The thing you don’t understand her eis, that if Gandhi did Satyagrah for a violent man like Bhagat Singh, he might as well as give up Satyagrah and move back to South Africa or London.
The question you must as is, why did we really fight the British? The way we lived in India, them being of white race and us being of a brown race it seemed sufficient for most people. But then should Americans try to get rid of Barack Obama and kick him back to Kenya?
Freedom fighters fought against the KING, not the people with white skin. They fought against a tyrannical government(they may have replaced one with another tyrannical govt but that’s beside the point).
Gandhi was fighting for truth, and it may sound like a ridiculous and boring statement, but if you were to define a term (in Hindi)for fight for objective reality you cannot come up with a better term than Satyagraha. Defending Bhagat Singh was Druagraha, and Gandhi could just not do it.
Gandhi took back Non-cooperation movement, which made him immensely unpopular nationwide, just to stick with his principles. He did not want to associate it with Chauri Chaura violence.
100s and 100s of satyagrahi ate bullets of Britishers, how come Bhagat Singh, Chandrashekar Azad somehow are greater human beings than them for you? On what grounds should Gandhi justify defending Bhagat Singh on his soul, that the political favor he acquired by using the power of truth, by the bloods of numerous Satyagrahis, he should use it to defend a guy who does not even understand the meaning of Satyagraha(Bhagat Singh) and believed in the usage of violence to attain his ends.
This is what I am talking about, nobody really understands Gandhi. Among the massive misconceptions about Gandhi a few are:
1) Gandhism is resistance for weak people and women.
2) Gandhi was fighting to kick white people out of India.
3) Gandhi was willing to do anything to get rid of Britishers.
4) Gandhi aimed to establish what Nehru eventually established in India, or Gandhi was a Socialist.
Lemme put some quotes from Gandhi about Socialism, Capitalism and State, and judge for yourself:
SORRY, that was Bhagat Singh the Libertarian’s political party Hindustan Socialist Republican Association’s party manifesto. Also he was reading Lenin’s biography when he was hanged, and his last regret was ‘I only wish I could finish Lenin’s biography before dying’.
Anyways coming back to Gandhi, Gandhi on Capitalism:
Gandhi on Socialism, Communism and State:
And this is my favorite quote by Gandhi:
Unpretentious Diva Says:
December 7th, 2009 at 10:14 amI would like to see what evidences you put forth about this false. Let those evidences be neutral.
On the other hand, I can certainly provide evidences that Bhagat Singh and Chandra Shekhar Azad comprehensively declined to attack any british woman or children ever, infact they provided full safety to them when they could.
Yes you may say that Garam Dal did some acts like that of Kakori kand (Ram Prasad Bismil) and some others. But to take back one’s own money is not robbery. You must understand that.
Renegade, don’t try to paint the truth in different colours just for your personal vendetta against some of the people and your personal liking towards certain other kind of people.
For your help, I may provide you the well-conserved documents of whatever happened before and after Jalianwala Bagh and what caused it. For now, you may look a note on wikipedia’s account on JWBM.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jallianwala_Bagh_massacre
So you see, British Army fired against peaceful protestors who surely were gandhians. The supporters and fans of those Gandhians couldn’t bear the attack (they were not gandhians) so they tried to oppose it by throwing stones/sticks and other things at the armed police of britishers, and that killed almost 5 Europeans. Lol. So you believe that Indians were righteously to be killed at Jalian Wala Bagh because they tried to protest against British army’s gun fires against the peacful “Gandhian” protesters? Yes in the abrupt protest of Indians against gun firing by British army killed five Europeans, but try to answer me, if stones could kill five Europeans, how many Indians would have been killed by British guns? Unaccountable.
To revenge the killing of those 5 Europeans, Indian women and children were attacked in Jalianwala Bagh after that.
Gauhar Kachchhi Says:
December 8th, 2009 at 7:36 am@Unpretentious Diva
You’re angry with Gandhi because you have been misinformed. There is a campaign of hate against Gandhi in the Shiv Sena and RSS circles. But you must understand that Gandhi was a different person.
He was an Organizer… He faced down the world’s largest Empire raising a stick. If India had decided to adopt violent resistance against the British to free India, we would have ended up like Vietnam or Cambodia… Utterly helpless against a ravaging superpower…
Gauhar Kachchhi´s last blog ..GHAC Trek to Sheshachalam Mountain Ranges near Tirupati
Renegade Division Says:
December 8th, 2009 at 9:29 am@Gauhar
This is exactly my point, most people in India grow up hating Gandhi, Diva is one of them, and I was one too(in fact on my facebook page I was mocking Gandhi until last year). But the reason why I was forced to reconsider my viewpoints, and Gandhi because of my observation of the liberty movement in New Hampshire. Many activists are getting arrested, going to prison, for all sorts of things, some have started to read Gandhi, Patrick Henry Thoreau etc, and overall everything is in a disarray. It is the spontaneous order which has made them realize that peaceful means are the only most effective methods against the State. I don’t know what Gargi thinks is the way to achieve liberty, and reduce the state, but if it is that when enough number of people raise weapons against the state we can achieve liberty, then good luck with that.
If she thinks political action is the way to go, then good for her, in fact it might even work for India, provided she reaches to a position of power. I mean you could somehow reach to the power, and then use free market policies and make people realize that they are now more prosperous because of the free market and freedom. But after this loses momentum, India will be stuck at being America. And in America this political action for liberty is currently the weakest possible solution.
Why did Gandhi’s philosophy worked(sure Gargi may disagree that he didn’t get us independence, but then lets presume that by ‘working’ we mean mobilizing millions and millions of people, if we mobilize millions of people for liberty against the state in India or in America wouldn’t that solve our purpose)?
Gandhi’s philosophy worked (or lemme put it this way ‘will work’) because he put the truth out in front of people. We know state is aggression but most people don’t know that. Take for example America, in America most people believe that they live in the freest country in the world. The fascination for liberty is just magical in USA. But we know it for a fact that its just a great illusion created by the US government. If you go guns blazing against the state, you will be classified as a Terrorist(and god forbid if you are Muslim too), and the US govt will classify you are civil anarchist, they have killed people like those before and they will kill again, and the people will rejoice that they have saved democracy.
On the other hand, if you used Gandhian philosophy and got arrested for burning plant material in front of a police station, or something like that out there in open, it makes people think (sooner or later), why is it that we are arresting and throwing people in prison for committing no physical violence against people. In NH, an activist called Sam Dodson was arrested for filming in court. He was kept in jail for 58 days, they released him because he started to get media attention. Americans hear it immediately when Iranian govt arrests some reporters but they never hear about it when something like that happens in their own backyard, and even then they rationalize it in some manner or way. These things are called ‘Satyagraha’ because they make people and masses see what the state really is(in case of Gandhi it was the King’s rule).
@Unpretentious Diva
I am sorry Diva, but everybody can clearly see you are more angry against Gandhi than to have points against him. You are so angry that you think Bhagat Singh, the new icon of the neo-socialists in India is better than Gandhi. Plus comment after comment I am getting this feeling that you did not understand my article. You are raising the point of a girl being raped, and her response should be to turn around, but I have written this thing at many places ‘We realize that responding to a common thief with aggression makes sense, but responding to state with aggression does not make any sense. How is that?’, and in bold font If the aggressor’s right and wrong are twisted around, his polarities are reversed, if what you consider right is wrong for them, and what you consider is wrong is right for them, then there is no way you could win against them by responding to their aggression with more aggression. A rapist’s right and wrong aren’t twisted around, there isn’t a whole culture of people who believe that rape is their right, and they live and die to rape(which is in the case of a marital rape, if a woman living under Hadood law shoots her husband for having sex with her when she didn’t want it, then she will be punished for killing her husband and her ‘martyrdom’ will go waste because nobody in society has been able to see what really happened there). Therefore using violence against the rapist makes all the sense because the rapist knows he is doing a wrong thing.
You are just too angry against Gandhi and that’s why you are failing to see my point. The four points against you wrote a huge tirade, you didn’t even read that I wrote that those are MISCONCEPTIONS, I do not agree with any of them, but this is what the society believes. This is what I wrote:
I am sorry but I am not reading another one of your comment if it has *****s appearing in it. If you have rational points against Gandhi, you will not require the clutches of curse words in them. If you just are angry with Gandhi then deal with it, or just let me know that you wanna be irrational about it. I am not going to get in a pissing competition of words with you while explaining Gandhian philosophy, that would defeat the whole point. When you curse at people, when you are expressing anger, people’s survival instincts kick in, their minds shut up and they just become super defensive.
Unpretentious Diva Says:
December 8th, 2009 at 11:03 pmGandhi On Capitalism:
It can be easily demonstrated that destruction of the capitalist must mean destruction in the end of the worker and as no human being is so bad as to be beyond redemption, no human being is so perfect as to warrant his destroying him whom he wrongly considers to be wholly evil. We invite the capitalist to regard himself as trustee for those on whom he depends for the making, the retention, and the increase of his capital. Nor need the worker wait for his conversion. If capital is power, so is work. … Either is dependent on the other. Immediately the worker realizes his strength, he is in a position to become co-sharer with the capitalist instead of remaining his slave. If he aims at becoming the sole owner, he will most likely be killing the hen that lays golden eggs. Inequalities in intelligence and even opportunity will last till the end of time. A man living on the banks of a river has any day more opportunity of growing crops than one living in the arid desert.
Gandhi On Socialism and Communism: I look upon an increase of the power of the State with the greatest fear, because although while apparently doing good by minimizing exploitation, it does the greatest harm to mankind by destroying individuality, which lies at the root of all progress. We know of so many cases where men have adopted trusteeship, but none where the State has really lived for the poor. …
The socialists and communists say, they can do nothing to bring about economic equality today. They will just carry on propaganda in its favor and to that end they believe in generating and accentuating hatred. They say, when they get control over the State, they will enforce equality. Under my plan the State will be there to carry out the will of the people, not to dictate to them or force them to do its will.
It is my firm conviction that if the State suppressed capitalism by violence, it will be caught in the coils of violence itself, and will fail to develop non-violence at any time. The State represents violence in a concentrated and organized form. The individual has a soul, but as the State is a soulless machine, it can never be weaned from violence to which it owes its very existence.
Gandhi On Trusteeship
He very well identified the need for wealth creators. In the context of Ahmadabad textile strike when someone asked Gandhiji whether it is desirable to close down the mills he opined that we also need people who have the capacity to make money. Some more excerpts:
…That no matter how much money we have earned, we should regard ourselves as trustees, holding this money for the welfare of all our neighbours. If God gives us power and wealth, he gives us the same so that we may use them for the benefit of the mankind and not for our selfish, carnal purpose….
…My theory of trusteeship is no makeshift, certainly no camouflage. I am confident that it will survive all other theories. It has the sanction of philosophy and religion behind it.
I am inviting those people who consider themselves as owners today to act as trustees, i.e., owners, not in their own right, but owners in the right of those whom they have exploited.
Supposing I have come by a fair amount of wealth—either by way of legacy, or by means of trade and industry—I must know that all that wealth does not belong to me; what belongs to me is the right to an honourable livelihood, no better than that enjoyed by millions of others. The rest of my wealth belongs to the community and must be used for the welfare of the community.
http://appliedgandhi.blogspot.com/2008/02/gandhi-on-socialism-capitalism-and.html
The question how many can be real trustees according to this definition is beside the point. If the theory is true, it is immaterial whether many live up to it or only one man lives up to it. The question is of conviction.
It is my conviction that it is possible to acquire riches without consciously doing wrong. For example I may light on a gold mine in my one acre of land. But I accept the proposition that it is better not to desire wealth than to acquire it, and become its trustee. I gave up my own long ago, which should be proof enough of what I would like others to do. But what am I to advise those who are already wealthy or who would not shed the desire for wealth? I can only say to them that they should use their wealth for service.
Now Renegade can enjoy gandhian libertarianism, which demands him to give him freely that every penny which is more than his minimal needs to survive.
Lol gandhian Libertarianism says that Work according to capacities and earn according to needs, and do so with free will without violence.
isn’t it Communism without violence? lol
How could Gandhian philosophy help Jews in Nazi Germany? | Reason for Liberty Says:
January 29th, 2010 at 3:34 pm[…] wrote this ‘controversial’ article Was Gandhi a Libertarian? last month which had many positive and belligerently negative responses from the readers as […]