Posted on

The Emergence of Sanatana Marxism

With the advent of Modinomics, there is a considerable decline in the process of intellectualisation in the economic sphere. It may be a new norm of new India. The production of arguments, generally led by a coterie of statists, is usually drenched with the hopeless spirit of incoherent reasoning, confirmation bias and straw man fallacies. Murray Rothbard has a quote for these imbeciles, “It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a ‘dismal science.’ But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance.”

I do not contrite to use the term ‘imbeciles’ for this privileged tribe, who happen to confuse their own ‘feelings with thinking’, ‘economics with sociology’ and ‘statistics with history’, and nevertheless ‘sanatana dharma’ with ‘sanatana marxism’. This tribe is into the vocation of policy making, cow vigilantism, trolling, chanting, cacophonous journalism, and nonetheless politics. One may spot them individually but one can verily identify their nescience, in public sphere. They were ‘coherently’ critical in their analysis of socialism, marxism, hinduphobia, leftism, liberalism, nehruvianism, fabian economics and ‘license raj’ epoch, but [unfortunately] the cards got painted in the same colour that they used to condemn it once. This is to say that, saffron is the new red.

Some even dare to proffer credit to Modinomics for doing something ‘new’, but little do they know that their socialistic ‘grandmaster’ simply renamed the title of public policies (19, out of 22) after coming to power in 2014. The theme of UPA govt. or the Congress govt. always leaned towards the left spectrum. What India is witnessing today is political right-ism and economical left-ism at the same time, which is a perilous combination than carbon monoxide. This tribe, loving saffron colour, are nothing but cowmunists (not communists), who are simply and obediently OK with their grandmaster’s take on orwellian ‘Aadhar’ card, increasing taxation, ‘nationalization’ of cash holdings (aka demonetisation), general slavery tax (GST), taxes on profits (success) and cashback, beef ban (India being the 2nd largest exporter of beef, even today), illegalization of cryptocurrencies and the symmetrical regulation of right-to-information.

Ceteris Paribus (other things being equal), Modinomics came to power with a sweet promise “minimum government, maximum governance” but it turned out to be the case of “maximum government, minimum governance”. In my article on The Quint, I ratiocinated this case with facts. The government was supposed to leave people and market ‘free’. That’s the sanatana dharma.

But, bloggers like Arun Jaitley, and Piyush Goyal, and the most hon’ble cowmunist Nirmala Sitharaman seems to keep Indian economy upside-down. If Chanakya were alive today, he would die from brain hemorrhage by looking at the art of tax collection, GDP calculation and bailout structures.

The era of vedic India (Bhaarat) actually civilized the economic societies within India. It was mainly due to the then existence of ‘janpada’ system (decentralization of power and economic activities), which caused prosperity and collective growth. The year 2014 was assumed as 1947 part-II, begetting independence to India again, but the travesty of Modinomical civilization is poorly reflected on India’s ranking on the indexes of capital formation, job creation, obtaining construction permit, speedy trials, property rights, black wealth creation, start ups, etc.

The results speak louder than speeches, thus making India a nation of sanatana marxism (in short, socialism + cow). The rising debt, fiscal fascism, collectivism thought and rampant monetary apoplithorismosphobia are ‘ravana’ enough to grill the ‘ram rajya’ honeymoon story of Indian economy.

________________________________

About the Author

Prof. Jaimine Vaishnav is an anarcho-capitalist based in Mumbai, India. His hobbies are about defending the liberties of all his dissents without charging any fee at the cost of nobody.

Twitter a/c @jaiminism

_________________________________

Posted on

Self-determination rights, and India!

Assume that you live in a joint family system. You slog a lot, with few other members, and whereas the rest do not contribute in the same outcome of running the economy in this family. Yes, the rest may be adding respective values in their best capacity but they would not be interested to do more because they are dependent on you and few others without offering you any choice or option. Would you feel bad for seeing systematic infringement of your choices and consent, or would you plot to move out from this joint family because you feel that you would want your identity and autonomy to be protected and preserved? In some cases, you may assume that it is not right to move out because society’s peer pressure does not let you to separate yourself from your family. This case is a manifestation of false consciousness, and nothing else.

Analogically, at a larger level, India pretends nationalism (except when it comes to a media debate on Chinese foreign policy, cricket match with Pakistan and Australia, and special ‘patriotic’ occasions), and, on other days, Indians are usually immersed with caste-ism, divisive politics and social apathy. On a microscopic understanding, many Indians prefer regionalism as well as disintegration because they are not gratified with the centralization of power and unity. Chilling effect on this subject keeps their “free speech” under the desk of legal radar. If you disbelieve me, check the vox populi of “hoi polloi” on Kashmir issue, South India disgruntlement (Dravidianism), compulsion of regional linguisticism and socioeconomic circumvention of North Eastern India.

The best system is a decentralized society. That goes without saying. Constitutionally, India is blessed with clauses on power-sharing between central govt. and state govt. or decentralization, but not many Indians express empathy in general as there are many structural, functional and institutional barriers like regionalism, culture, social norms, literacy and history. This disintegrates the nation, unknowingly. “Unity in diversity” may be occasionally possible (surely, at the expense of gun point) but “Unity from diversity” is certainly impossible. Report me under the law of sedition and terrorism, but truth is truth (no matter how many statists disbelieve it). Continue reading “Self-determination rights, and India!”

Posted on

How Indian vernacular languages strengthen Statism, not Secessionism

India is a nation of regional sub-nations. There is no sound possibility of uniformized and integrated culture, unlike nations like Israel, Saudi Arabia, etc. India is a land of mixed culture. There are 29 regional states formed on the basis of linguistic demography, since 1956. There are more than 6 religion practiced, followed by more than 22 regional and official languages. Languages and religious beliefs play a macro role in determining the constitutional economics of Indian society. No doubt the institutions and machineries intended to conserve regional languages are vulnerable to political appeasement, regional-level populism and government interventionism. This does not mean that there is “unity from diversity” in India. In fact, languages or “politics over languages” have been known for promoting pro-regional feelings, myopic attitude and statism. Unfortunately, secessionism (right to secede) is legally and constitutionally banned in India. Whereas, in US (also the largest democracy in the world) is known for giving regards to the philosophy of secessionism. This is largely because of deficiency of libertarian tradition in the climate of Indian social sphere.

Vernacular languages of India have found its reservation in educational sphere, media sphere, political sphere, etc. There is no “marketplace of languages” here. Due to this, central government as well as state government play the role of interventionist in conserving the regional languages of India. Kindly acknowledge that regional languages are respectively spoken in their regional geography only. For example: Regional language like Marathi is widely spoken in the state of Maharashtra. You cannot find the same language spoken in other regional states of India. This endeavours the government to introduce tyrannical steps, through the kafkaesque of state-level laws, like compulsory learning, mandatory speaking, etc. across the regional board of education, business banners, and etc.. Many individuals believe that government is objectively right in preserving regional languages without realizing a coherent fact that language is not a private property of any group or the government. Just like money (medium of exchange), language is a medium of communication. To legally protect certain languages does not benefit the market that may subjectively value other set of languages. For example: Speaking English may benefit the market at large as it holds an international value. But, vernacular languages like Gujarati, Bengali, etc. may not benefit the decoder of other regional state or even to the listener in other countries.

Vernacular languages are also known for facilitating the transactions of government interventionism, especially in public schools. Many Indian parents prefer to send their kids to private schools, mainly because private schooling system is inured with qualitative learning, English speaking, etc. Even poor parents cannot imagine the wrath of public schooling system anymore. Lately, public schools have started emphasising upon the significance of English language. Keeping “so-called” anti-imperial or anti-Western feelings aside, the global economic conditions are determining such choices.  Some private educational institutes have started courses on Chinese linguistics too because Mandarin language is internationally influencing certain narratives, beliefs and policies.

The Government of India is displaying schizophrenic tendencies at the cost of learning, by listening to the inutile preferences of certain “regional-level” voting groups. In politics, organized voters matter a lot. In India, political sphere is quite myopic and regional-oriented. Affirmative action over regional languages too, and what not, are crooking the fabric of social and economic liberalism. It is not the business of the government to protect languages at the cost of personal preferences. It’s the market that determines the utility of language and communication. Every governmental action to conserve a language comes at a higher “unseen” cost. If regional languages continue to enjoy “privileges” from the government, people would not be really free to speak the language they individually prefer. They would always be under some threat from the “fringe groups”, and this would enhance systematic annihilation of creative and rational thinking as languages ratiocinate cultural influences on many human activities.

Posted on

Say NO to Econometrics

Leave economics alone. Already many people dislike studying economics because they’re not used to reasoning, debating and Socratic schooling. Thanks to jargons and “economists” for displaying the subject as a matter of “rocket science”.

In the age of so-called interdisciplinary learning, academicians, researchers, and economists are more obsessed with studying econometrics than economics. Their introductory sessions consist mainly of learning the law of demand, supply, and other macroeconomic chapters, with special obeisance given to “useful idiots” like Karl Marx, Alfred Marshall, John Maynard Keynes, and Arthur Pigou. Half of them consider Joseph Stiglitz, Thomas Piketty, Amartya Sen, and Paul Krugman as their “ideal” role model without realizing that their obsession is turning economics into “idle” role model.

Before I refute the necessity of econometrics in this blog, I wish to make it clear that I adore mathematics and statistics but I do not believe on empirical grounds to prelude these two areas in the field of economics. Yes, mathematics and statistics have inherent values which are unique and exclusive but it does not make sense to pollute the whole subject of economics from the angle of maths and stats. Consider this blog as a catharsis to diminish the growth of econometrics at the cost of economics.

In the natural sciences, a laboratory experiment can isolate various elements and their movements. There is no equivalent in the discipline of economics. The employment of econometrics and econometric model-building is an attempt to produce a laboratory where controlled experiments can be conducted. The idea of having such a laboratory is very appealing to economists and politicians. Once the model is built and endorsed as a good replica of the economy, politicians can evaluate the outcomes of various policies. This, it is argued, enhances the efficiency of government policies and thus leads to a better and more prosperous economy. It is also suggested that the model can serve as a referee in assessing the validity of various economic ideas. The other purpose of a model is to provide an indication regarding the future.   Continue reading “Say NO to Econometrics”

Posted on

Shut up, Professor!

Freedom is a central organ of all necessities. Just like food, clothing, shelter, wifi, and education, freedom is also a basic need. Without the freedom to think, speak, inquire and act, we cannot proudly declare ourselves to live in the right spirit of civilization. In this blog, I intend to highlight my primary experience (professional exposure) in academics. I am an Associate Professor based in Mumbai, followed with visiting in few educational institutes for lectureship of interdisciplinary studies. Recently, if I am not wrong, I am observing a national trend which is similar to the political economy of Nazism. This has an impact on academic freedom of all professors, researchers, and educators, not just mine. This trend is something that is not widely debated in our public sphere, mainstream media, and academic space. Academic freedom is a term defining which is not simple despite its simplicity. This idea is designed such that the teachers or professors are given the freedom to have different opinions or ideology in their thought processes. They are given the right to challenge the existing wisdom without any fear of being tried by the course coordinator, administrator or having to face any repercussions later that may cause problems in their careers. I hope that my blog, on the occasion of Teacher’s Day, endeavors to highlight the unseen issues and implications of the lack of academic freedom in India.

Given the socioeconomic problems offered by the current regime since 2014, there is an urgent need for emphasizing academic freedom as a core component of ensuring scientific learning, epistemological criticisms, ontological inquiries and rational thinking. The governmental machineries led by PM Modi are consciously missing out to understand the significance of academic freedom, knowledge building, and critical literature systems. I am seeing an unfortunate trend in this regard. I am not referring to JNU, Aligarh University, Jamia Islamia and other communistic agencies. It’s recent in my case for being a libertarian. The reason (feedback) is simple, clear and direct: “Do not criticize nationalism, GST, demonetization and India’s PM Narendra Modi in your lecture as students dislike your analysis, facts, and thoughts.” I am not shocked because it’s not the first and the last feedback in my professional life. In the last 8 years, I am anyway receiving a “feedback” for speaking factually, coherently and originally. When UPA was in power, I was told to adopt the principles of political correctness in my class with Islamic students at some inst. in Mumbai. After PM Modi coming to power in 2014, I don’t see any difference except the prolusion of cow (beef) in public discourse. Well, no amount of feedback or legal approaches will hinder my attitude because government’s ego is not above my conscience.

My disagreement is not about abhorrence or offending. It is simply stapled to check on the unscientific temperament of the govt. and its’ policies. The saffronization of academic culture in contemporary India should realize that UNESCO’s International Conference (1950) articulated three interdependent principles for which every university should stand. First, the right to pursue knowledge for its own sake and to follow wherever the search for truth may lead; second, the tolerance of divergent opinion and freedom from political interference; and third, the obligation as social institutions to promote, through teaching and research, the principles of freedom and justice, of human dignity and solidarity, and to develop mutually material and moral aid on an international level. But, in India, academic freedom is increasingly under assault from the sheeples of statism. It is also increasingly devalued in favor of administrative centralization and standardization.

Ramachandra Guha, a distinguished historian, claims that the Indian left has consistently interfered in university appointments in both Kerala and West Bengal. In fact, in West Bengal, the former left-wing government of Jyoti Basu had acquired such an astonishing degree of control over higher education that no critic of Marxism stood a chance of becoming the vice-chancellor of Calcutta University, let alone holding a senior faculty position. Sadly, that is what India’s best institutes and universities have degenerated into: Factories producing hundreds of thousands of graduates year after year with scarcely any concern for promoting cutting-edge research or stimulating innovation. If that isn’t disappointing enough, a recent study states that India lags behind Kenya in research, a country whose per capita income is almost half of India.

Government interventionism is rampant in the academic sphere of India. They control our thoughts through syllabus, incentives, bureaucracy, obligations and academic culture and others. In my case, I have been advised to introspect upon my political consciousness. But, however, I swear to not alter my views on India’s political economy because I choose to resign from the spiral of silence. If I submit to this saffron spiralism, I would become a “useful idiot”. My question is simple: What is the value of free speech without the right to disagree? No doubt that India (138/190 nations) is just one rank above Pakistan, on “freedom of speech” global index.

_________________________

About the Author

Prof. Jaimine Vaishnav is an anarcho-capitalist based in Mumbai, India. His hobbies are about defending the liberties of all his dissents without charging any fee at the cost of nobody.

Twitter a/c
@meritocratic
_________________________

Posted on

Messonomics

In today’s epoch of uncertain economies, messonomics is a revision of old discipline. It’s an un-scientific discipline celebrated by the unaccountable and unquestionable political class to procure and create primary “economical” decisions with an intent to generate and sustain mess. In simple words, messonomics is an art of doing economics by creating mess out of simplicity. Power of it is dependent upon abundant supply of nescience in the economy. Anything that is scientific or logical should be deemed as “illegal” because moral sense is a threat to the grammar of messonomics. If few dissents arrive at a conclusion that “your economic thinking is factually incorrect” then it becomes a parliamentary duty to judge their propaganda a.k.a approach as “voodoo economics”. Basically, the mess created due to governmental failure is always constitutional, right, logical and legitimate.

 To refer Indian economy as a modern example of messonomics, demonetisation could be considered as a perfect illustration. The process was more political than economical, in nature. If it were economical, information asymmetry could have been avoided. But, unfortunately, the government led by PM Narendra Modi opted to mess with the property rights of its own citizens or voters. Messonomics of demonetisation would tell you that PM Modi simply nationalized the personal cash holdings, just like how late “socialist” Nehru nationalised industries and his late daughter Indira nationalised the banks. The government is such an institution, in our society, that enjoys unchecked power on monopoly on laws, rules, force and violence. Consent is another threat to the grammar of messonomics. If the economics of choice and consent is taken into being, messonomics would lose its coercive power and credibility. Basically, messonomics is not a manifestation of rocket science but a reflection of various logical fallacies in the subject of economics.

On academic level, using gibberish words and Keynesian school of thought, selling messonomics to students is quite easier than it was. Most of them don’t understand economics, in general, and most of them don’t have to understand economics, in peculiar. The reason is that messonomics is a norm in academic as well as public sphere. Many messonomic journals or research papers deal with the volume of pages (that nobody reads), followed by “interdisciplinary” prolusion of mathematics, anthropology and sociology…which led to further devolution of economics. If this is not how you master the art of messing with logic and knowledge, then what else is?

The lesser I refer to the IQ of mainstream media, the better for you. All these predictions and anticipations on economy comes with statistical education on messonomics. If you are not subscribed to the pool of it, you cannot be a famous astrologer on “prime time news hour debate” discussing about uncertainty of the certainty. Your popularity in media life is dependent upon abundant distribution of incoherent narratives. Recently, I was stunned to listen to a “renowned journalist” who believes that government should be given more powers to clear the mess in our economy. In this case, the law of messonomics is cyclical and highly fragile. I have not understood: How would government clear the mess with more powers, when it created the mess, in the first place, with the same standard of powers?

The think-tanks got to comply with the theme of mainstream economics too. If they transcend the geography of armchair analysis, they don’t receive proper funding. They are liable to repeat the same mistake in their “analysis” by expecting different outcome or else they would be quite insipid in their own echo chamber “intellectually masturbating” seminars. Their understanding of messonomics is completely in tangent with the global ministries of economics, trade, commerce and finance. Not just that they suffer from schizophrenia (fear of reality), cognitive dissonance (fear of new information/logic), eleutherophobia (fear of liberty) and apoplithorismosphobia (love for inflation), but they would not mind hiding their mercantilism traits. In India, they believe in “strict regulation” of blockchain technology and crytocurrencies. Plus, on the domain of tariffs and fiscal deficit, they are vociferously loud on expanding the size of government interventionism. There is a direct relationship between government interference and messonomics, and that is because “market success” hurts the ego of messonomists. Messonomics believes in organizing chaos and disorderliness without realizing the implications of such actions. Conclusively speaking, messonomics has overtaken economics. It is simply about confusing the knowledge of economics by messing with a basic axiom: Human Action.
_________________________

About the Author

Prof. Jaimine Vaishnav is an anarcho-capitalist based in Mumbai, India. His hobbies are about defending the liberties of all his dissents without charging any fee at the cost of nobody.

Twitter a/c
@meritocratic
_________________________

Posted on

Why is India not so rich?


When your parents are conservative and rigid, you are likely to commit more personal and inconsequential mistakes because you cannot imagine living your life without experiencing and experimenting the unconventional aspect of life. Curiosity within you is something that cannot be intrinsically controlled at any cost. You wish as well as aspire for more freedom, when your parents display tyrannical tendencies against you or your controlled behavior. In this saga, you’re least likely to accept personal responsibility after committing some error. The outcome of this setting would be that, your parents might end up compelling you for some uninvited or unexpected decision. Which means that, you do not enjoy a proper standard of living, freedom of choice, consent and individual liberty.
In par with the above prolusion, our economy is almost like a rigid parent. When your economy is liberal, free and flexible, you possess a better ambiance to try and experiment something with a sense of onus and belonging-ness. Yes, you will undoubtedly make mistakes, but you’re likely to learn from it since the environment would be in a way of establishing and incentivizing individual responsibility as well as personal accountability. Don’t we feel good, when our parents understand us and our personal liberties/choices? Similarly, it feels great to endorse when government acts as a watch-man in the system. When government acts like a nanny state, people enjoy less freedom and indecent lifestyle. It’s simple. Therefore, the burden of proof isn’t on me to prove the caliber of freedom. It’s on the proponents of government to tell us “How does maximizing the power of statism benefit the standard of freedom for all?“

Today, India celebrates her Independence day. As usual it’s a routine to publicly celebrate this day, without introspecting the modern character of independence. This blog does not question the credibility of independence. It simply endeavors to examine the status of independence. Hope I am not judged as “anti-national” for bothering a bit more about the quality of freedom. To begin with, Indian economy – since 1947 – has been celebrating “license raaj” through the mode of socialism. Followed with “Hindu rate of growth” wherein economic fatalism played a huge role in shaping the social cognition of India; development didn’t really trickled down till the year 1991. The year 1991 experienced a great transitional stage, as Indian economy liberalized, privatized and globalized herself. It also proved, to our inutile comrades, how socialist model or soviet model is/was coherently unfit to govern the socioeconomic structures of India. LPG stands for liberalization, privatization and globalization, which is not antithetical to the axioms of capitalist model. But, in our parallel-cum-real universe, I see India redoing socialism by using different euphemisms at different levels to fool different people differently. Take the example of government’s populism over the economics of fiscal spending: [the] total government expenditure has increased from ₹20,144 billion (for the financial year, 2016-17) to ₹21,467 billion (for the financial year 2017-18) – an increase of almost ₹1.32 trillion. Breaking news, isn’t it? Get this straight: “The more the spending, the lesser the economic freedom. Lesser the economic freedom, higher the dependency.”

Do not you think that the celebrators of ‘Independence Day’ should judge the relation between fiscal spending and economic freedom, in order to realize how much their government loves to keep people fiscally dependent than financially independent?

On the other hand, India’s PM Narendra Modi once called MGNREGA prog. “a living monument of UPA’s failure”. MGNREGA is a keynesian policy started by UPA govt., a decade ago, to employ the conscience of broken window fallacy. The prog. does not add any value to the people who are employed under the socialist scheme. It is just about digging the road and reconstructing the road, with an intent to keep unskilled laborers ’employed’. The current govt. led by PM Modi has impudently allocated 480 billion rupees to the prog. Isn’t this a trait of maximum government and minimum governance? Plus, in the name of re-capitalisation and other banking-related nonsense, Modi government has infused 2 trillion rupees into the system. Privatizing the public banks would be a coherent decision, but the government suffers from apoplithorismosphobia and to liberate it from the chains of slavery which it radically reveres would be a dangerous idea.

Keeping it straight: Capital-ism is an essential feature to determine the growth and development of land, labor and entrepreneurship. Any placement of uncontrollable feature above the spirit of capital can lead to systematic destruction of the economy. Unfortunately, the political fraternity is usually and continuously interested to place its “national” interests over the functions of capital and intends to also replace the spatial zone with more unchecked political power. My logic 101 states that power cannot coexist with capitalism. Either you believe in the power of politics or else in the catallactic dynamics of economy. To have both at the same time is a dangerous idea.
Using the PPP (purchasing power parity) of 2011 to determine the contemporary ratiocination of poverty in India, World Bank (WB) estimates India’s poor population to be around 172 million. Total population of India is around 1.34 billion, which constitutes 18% of the global population. You may believe that average income for many Indians is between $1.90 – $2.30 per day. Followed by systematic statism of India’s government on the organized sector, informal economy constituting 80-85% seems more lucrative. Actually speaking, India grows at night because day time is peculiarly a slot of the regulated activities. Regulations may or may not help the economy to grow, but however, it is vital to learn that minimum regulations can vouch maximum governance. Otherwise, maximum regulatory frames simply end up enlarging the size of government interventionism. So, what is stopping India to grow quickly? The answer is deficiency of economic liberty. Now, assuming that regulations do “greater good”, Indian economy should not shy from confessing the following details:
Ease of doing business: 100 / 190 nations
Economic freedom: 130 / 190
Free speech: 138 / 190
Ease of obtaining construction permit: 181 / 190
Life expectancy: 125 / 190
Education index: 141 / 190
Happiness Index: 133 / 190
Human Development index: 131 / 190
Gender Inequality index: 125 / 190
The above rankings generally give an impression of periphery status of Indian economy. I opted to specially focus on the given rankings because they are the essential parameters of economic growth and development. Yes, we don’t discourse about it in our public sphere because the government and its media complex intends to sell “peaceful lies” than “dangerous facts” to the people of India.

Considering that governmental committees commissioned by the India’s parliament focus more on the school of poverty from the outlook of salt-water economic thought, which virtually does not benefit the poverty line at large because populism and demagogy incentivize the political willingness in this nation. India is not so rich, like Taiwan, Singapore, South Korea, Japan or Hong Kong, because the so-called economics committees formed to solve poverty are inured to adopt conventional methodologies. It is not coherent to repeat the same model/approach and expect a very different outcome. Only when the government limits the political zone of power interests, capitalism shall rescue more poor Indians from poverty. Say, the richest 10% Indians own 80% of wealth because regulations have been framed in a way that does not mobilize others to grow. From the perspective of “public choice theory (economics)”, the rich grow richer because Indian economy is biased towards its own people. You cannot compel a man to stand in a bucket and tell him to lift the bucket, right? In this thought, laffer curve can do its prolusion to mobilize more decentralization or else centralization of economy will iterate “permission raaj” system.

To ratiocinate, it would make sense to cherish “Independence Day” when India legitimizes “right to deviate”. Independence is not about depending upon your master. It’s about “freedom from master’s coercion”. When an individual is censored and condemned at the various levels of socialization, for preferring “dangerous truth” over “peaceful lies”, the society – as a whole – is weakening the foundation of independence without realizing the implications of abhorring individualism. When people are dependent upon government to legalize sexual orientation and other privacy-related matters, the society is debauching the state of liberty. In my opinion, it would also make sense by linking the status of economic freedom with the Independence Day celebrations…so that our society would get to organically know its own “intellectual honesty”. Ending this blog with a direct question to introspect upon Independence Day celebration: “Who is more safer at 2 am on our public roads: Cows or Girls?“

______________________________

About the author

Prof. Jaimine Vaishnav is an anarcho-capitalist prof. based in Mumbai, India. His hobbies are about defending the liberties of all his dissents without charging any fee at the cost of nobody.

Twitter a/c
@meritocratic

_______________________________

Posted on

Meet the woman who fought against “Breast Tax”

150 years ago, in Kerala (a regional state of India), lower caste ladies were compelled by the Brahmins and the King of Travancore to pay the “breast tax”. The tax rate was proportional to the breast size. The rationale behind it was to religiously sustain the cultural domination and social control over lower caste people. A “breast tax” or mulakkaram was imposed by the landowning and voyeuristic Brahmins on lower caste Hindu women (if they wanted to cover their breasts in public).

Mainly the Nadar and Ezhava communities weren’t allowed to cover their chests in front of members of the upper caste (Brahmins). This was considered a sign of modesty and it was important they complied. Clothing was considered a sign of wealth and prosperity, and the poor and the lower-castes were simply not entitled to it. No doubt to note that Hinduism is a religion of caste which continues to execute the features of social hierarchy. But, unfortunately, the fascists cannot control – all the people – all the time. With all due respect, instead of paying the “breast tax”, a lady named Nangeli stood up for her dignity or self-respect and cut off her breasts.

To make her protest known, she chopped off her breasts and presented them to a village officer in a plantain leaf. She died the same day from loss of blood. Nangeli’s husband, Chirukandan, on seeing her mutilated body, overcome by grief, jumped into her funeral pyre committing suicide.

Following the death of Nangeli, a series of people’s movements were set off and the breast tax system was ultimately annulled in Travancore. The place she lived came to be known later as Mulachiparambu (meaning land of the breasted woman). Sadly speaking, in today’s time, CBSE (a governmental body that regulates and censors the content or curriculum) issued a notification or a circular “banning the history of Nangeli from school books” because it finds the content “very objectionable”. This blog is an attempt to educate the readers about an unsung and unpopular revolutionary lady who fearlessly stood up to fight against the tyranny. In my view, you too have Nangeli’s conscience in your mind. It’s high time that you bring her out in yourself and “smash the tyranny” in any form. Freedom isn’t given to you. You have to snatch it. You may also view my video wherein I ratiocinate that taxation is theft:


Please share this blog, before your elected government issues any notification against my blog.

Posted on

Contradiction 101: “Public Property”

The general belief is that public property is owned by the people. This belief isn’t only uncritical but also uneconomical. If you think that the belief is still economical or rational then how do you define “people” and their “public” ownership of the property? Also, what percentage do the “people” respectively own “public” property? How much is it unfair to share in the whole ownership structure?

These questions cannot be conclusively answered because public property isn’t embodied with the rational calculation of prices, incentives, liberty and ownership. If you’re not an “economist” (government’s bootlicker), you would surely gibe at my assertions.

Public property is a contradiction in terms. There’s nothing called “public”, first of all. What you see around is rational individuals who are driven by the principle of self-interest. You, as an individual, are also driven by your self interest axiom, to read this blog. No one is compelling you. Even if you’re forced to read this blog, you’re still driven by your self-interest policy to obey the command. This proves that there’s nothing called “collective interest” because groups cannot think or reason.

Only individuals can.

Since public property is a generalization, it is to be commonly understood that individuals own the property because ownership gives the individuals a sense of freedom and rights.

Since public property possesses a “common” title, its’ users don’t have rational incentives to take care of it. That’s why public property ends up getting mismanaged or crooked.

What would you prefer to take care of, your private property or collective property? The former gives you the right and freedom to nurture it because private property’s nature is dependent upon your responsibility, whereas the latter does not have any incentive to look after it.

To make the case easier, would you prefer a private swimming pool or a public pool?

Of course, you would dislike the quality of a public pool because you don’t own it to nurture it. This doesn’t mean that we need more government interventionism or supervision. We need more private property rights so that the government (“owner” of public property) does not resort to infringe your personal property or possession. Continue reading “Contradiction 101: “Public Property””

Posted on

Happy Dependence Day, India

Every Fifteenth of August, since 1947, Indians celebrate the anniversary of Independence Day. On this day, it’s believed that India declared herself “free” from the tyrannical and imperialism British rule.

Before we mindlessly debate over nationalism or recklessly defend the Orwellian nature of Aadhar card, ask yourself: Are you truly free and independent?

If you intend to honestly use the word ‘independence’, you should have the intellectual courage to give it a real meaning and i.e. “Independence is living without government coercion”. So, when our politicians or your friends celebrate ‘Independence Day’, you must ask yourself whether this politician is advocating for more governmental action/intervention or less. On the contrary, no politician would love to see its own people living freely. Name me at least one neta, if you can, who believes that people should enjoy more liberties at the expense of the whole political fraternity.

Yes, with all due respect, our seditious and audacious freedom fighters valiantly fought against the fascism of British rule because they truly believed in the principles of individual liberty and social freedom. But, unfortunately, since 1950, the government of India has grown exponentially….which isn’t a good sign. From license raj system (1950-1991) to permission raj system (1992-2014) to inspection raj system (2014 to present), the government is now involved in nearly every aspect of our lives. Which aspect isn’t regulated, controlled, taxed, centralised, monopolised, dictated, notified, snooped, or licensed? Name me at least one function which is not scanned by the government, if you can.

Other things being equal, tell me, how much “independence” is there in today’s “Independence Day” euphory at all?

Let’s examine the recent (2016) shocking stories:

  1. India is ranked at 130 out of 189 countries, when it comes to doing business.
  2. India is ranked at 124 out of 166 countries, when it comes to the economic liberty.

The reason behind India’s “stagnant development” is mainly due to the embodiment of structural traits like draconian rules or procedures, big bureaucracy, eleutherophobic tax administrators, regulatory captures and the apoplithorismosphobic monetary system. On the other side, India’s global ranking for ‘Enforcement of Contracts’ (2016) stands at 184 out of 189 countries. Which means that institutions “responsible” for the ‘rule of law’ are not grim about “implementation” because they are not “accountable” to the taxpayers. Who cares? Continue reading “Happy Dependence Day, India”