WARNING: Before you implement the pieces of advice, it is necessary for you to have a nuke or else it is not easy to declare yourself as a legal thug who is going to constitutionally take care of everything at the expense of everyone else except yourself.
Otherwise, you would have a difficult time in organising the slaves and call yourself “the government”.
To destroy your nation’s economy, you need to abhor freedom of others. If you lack this quality, you are not “mentally fit” to envy and expropriate others. All your actions can be justified by a piece of paper called “constitution”. There’s nothing to worry about, except anarchists.
Second thing, you should never learn economics. What matters is sociology because it helps us to “screech autistically” and attain the status of victimhood, followed by a biased understanding of the history subject.
By the way, if you come across any “critical thinker” or “learned person” then it is your moral duty to shun his/her opinion without using facts, but sentiments. Anyway, the above premises are the fundamental and foundational qualities to embrace the civility of a good politician. Only Ron Paul can be a bad politician because he does not support this guide/blog. I condemn him for that. Continue reading “A Political Guide To Destroying Your Economy”
Once upon a time in India, voluntaryist societies existed. A voluntaristic society is that community where people transact, socialise and trade without fearing any coercion, hierarchy and taxtortion. In such a liberal society, people live tranquilly, responsibly and rationally because it empowers the cultural scope of spontaneous order and catallactic actions of all the participants or members. In today’s scenario, excluding the black markets, it is very rare to spot such open, free and transparent societies. Thanks to the government.
I am not an Indologist but I live in India. In this article, I do not intend to divulge the marketing skills of my authorship but helping my international amigos to know the features of Vedic anarchism. To begin with, the Vedas are a large body of knowledge texts originating in the ancient Indian subcontinent.
Composed in the Sanskrit language, the texts constitute the oldest layer of Sanskrit literature and the oldest scriptures of Hinduism. Hindus consider the Vedas to be apauruṣeya, which means “not of a man, superhuman” and “impersonal, authorless”. Vedic anarchism period existed in Bhaarat (India) between 4000 BC – 500 BC. But, in today’s time, in India as elsewhere, the anarchist thought is widely misunderstood. As Bhagat Singh (1907–1931), one of the few Indian revolutionaries who had explicit anarchist leanings, put it:
“The people are scared of the word anarchism. The word anarchism has been abused so much that even in India revolutionaries have been called anarchist to make them unpopular.”
Vedic anarchism is a fearless trek into the unknown. Since it throws out the imposed normative ideals of other political philosophies, Vedic anarchism prescribes complete sacrifice of the ego of a politically-driven mind. It forebodes the usual prescriptions and solutions for society’s ills and trusts the forces of cooperative effort, mutual respect, and mutualism will do better. It’s the respect for the limits of human reason, the fallibility of human power, the unlikely, but unsurpassed, power of unconscious design, the appreciation of innovation and progress brought about by forces completely out of our control and, above all, humility – the recognition of one’s own mistakes, flaws, ignorance, and inability to know the unknown. Continue reading “Vedic Anarchism”
There’s a self-proclaimed intellectual tribe which believes in a contradictory premise and that is “removing 80% of the tumor solves the cancer, while the remaining 20% should be left intact”.
It is just not a belief but also a modern ideology. They worship this political ideology, like the way jihadists worship Islam, but without directly initiating violence. The tribe also believes that it is morally correct to have freedom in all economic activities because they trust the principles of government-constituted free market.
When it comes to defense, police and courts or law, the tribe would not mind distrusting the principles of laissez-faire. To add, the tribe does not realise that it suffers from a psychotic disorder called ‘stockholm syndrome’ (which means, sympathising with the crime doer).
For example: they chant, blog & podcast “government is evil” (without realising that they’re the ones who are always eager to necessitate the evil at the expense of everyone else). They tend to forget that ‘limiting’ the evil does not equate to abolishment of evil.
Evil is evil, no matter what’s the size of it.
I do not intend to bash these intellectuals in this article. I am simply analysing their unnoticed hypocrisy.
What makes their myth so different from other political ideologies like democracy, communism, etc., when their own ideology is a diet coke of all the fascist tendencies? Continue reading “Diet Coke of Fascism”
It is fashionable to misunderstand the theory, character, principles and applications of anarchism, in the age of alt-internet. Due to this, anarchism is considered as a ‘ludicrous illusion’ whereas government (the idea so mandatory that violence can civilise people without their consent) is considered to be the best gift of reality.
Misunderstanding anarchism is also an auxiliary activity of the mainstream media, public schools, bureaucrats, politicians, and the ignorant populace.
Their imagination isn’t only limited to the belief that ‘government is a magical institution’ but it also extended to the practice that everyone else should also survive within the limits of their perspectives. If you attempt to reason or discourse with them then they will ensure that you’re ashamed and defamed.
Thus, the burden of proof is not on the anarchists to prove “why freedom is vital” but on the pro-slavery advocates to prove “why people should be forced to live in a system of organised chaos (government)”.
Worse, some who call themselves “anarchists” don’t even know the meaning of the term. These people fall, in general, into three classes:
1) advocating that state should be abolished and then replacing the society with collectivism spirit, wherein “anarchists” should not be allowed to reap fruits from their own labor,
2) advocating that state should be abolished and then replacing the ‘welfare policies of Stalin’ with the ‘welfare policies of Mao’, and
3) advocating that the state should be abolished and then replacing the society with ‘Trump’.
This article was originally published in The Review of Austrian Economics in 1991, during the collapse of the Soviet Union.
At the root of the dazzling revolutionary implosion and collapse of socialism and central planning in the “socialist bloc” is what everyone concedes to be a disastrous economic failure. The peoples and the intellectuals of Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union are crying out not only for free speech, democratic assembly, and glasnost, but also for private property and free markets. And yet, if I may be pardoned a moment of nostalgia, four-and-a-half-decades ago, when I entered graduate school, the economics Establishment of that era was closing the book on what had been for two decades the famed “socialist calculation debate.” And they had all decided, left, right, and center, that there was not a thing economically wrong with socialism: that socialism’s only problems, such as they might be, were political. Economically, socialism could work just as well as capitalism.
Mises and the Challenge of Calculation
Before Ludwig von Mises raised the calculation problem in his celebrated article in 1920, everyone, socialists and non-socialists alike, had long realized that socialism suffered from an incentive problem. If, for example, everyone under socialism were to receive an equal income, or, in another variant, everyone was supposed to produce “according to his ability” but receive “according to his needs,” then, to sum it up in the famous question: Who, under socialism, will take out the garbage? That is, what will be the incentive to do the grubby jobs, and, furthermore, to do them well? Or, to put it another way, what would be the incentive to work hard and be productive at any job?
The traditional socialist answer held that the socialist society would transform human nature, would purge it of selfishness, and remold it to create a New Socialist Man. That new man would be devoid of any selfish, or indeed any self-determined, goals; his only wish would be to work as hard and as eagerly as possible to achieve the goals and obey the orders of the socialist State. Throughout the history of socialism, socialist ultras, such as the early Lenin and Bukharin under “War Communism,” and later Mao Tse-tung and Che Guevara, have sought to replace material by so-called “moral” incentives. This notion was properly and wittily ridiculed by Alexander Gray as “the idea that the world may find its driving force in a Birthday Honours List (giving to the King, if necessary, 165 birthdays a year).” At any rate, the socialists soon found that voluntary methods could hardly yield them the New Socialist Man. But even the most determined and bloodthirsty methods could not avail to create this robotic New Socialist Man. And it is a testament to the spirit of freedom that cannot be extinguished in the human breast that the socialists continued to fail dismally, despite decades of systemic terror.
But the uniqueness and the crucial importance of Mises’s challenge to socialism is that it was totally unrelated to the well-known incentive problem. Mises in effect said: All right, suppose that the socialists have been able to create a mighty army of citizens all eager to do the bidding of their masters, the socialist planners. What exactly would those planners tell this army to do? How would they know what products to order their eager slaves to produce, at what stage of production, how much of the product at each stage, what techniques or raw materials to use in that production and how much of each, and where specifically to locate all this production? How would they know their costs, or what process of production is or is not efficient?
Mises demonstrated that, in any economy more complex than the Crusoe or primitive family level, the socialist planning board would simply not know what to do, or how to answer any of these vital questions. Developing the momentous concept of calculation, Mises pointed out that the planning board could not answer these questions because socialism would lack the indispensable tool that private entrepreneurs use to appraise and calculate: the existence of a market in the means of production, a market that brings about money prices based on genuine profit-seeking exchanges by private owners of these means of production. Since the very essence of socialism is collective ownership of the means of production, the planning board would not be able to plan, or to make any sort of rational economic decisions. Its decisions would necessarily be completely arbitrary and chaotic, and therefore the existence of a socialist planned economy is literally “impossible” (to use a term long ridiculed by Mises’s critics). Continue reading “The End of Socialism and the Calculation Debate Revisited”
Summer is fast approaching and now that our tummies are sculpted and legs toned, it’s time for break-up season! As a resident of California, I’ve heard a lot of talk about #Calexit for months now following the November election:
I However, do not favor Federal Secession at this time.
I’m really not interested in humoring temper tantrums. If there were some deep, principled argument being put forward by the liberty minded people of this state, I would feel more sympathetic;
but, let’s not pretend or hope that Calexit is about anything other than…
“I didn’t get my way, so I need a safe space!”
Breaking from The Union, and it’s constitutional protections for the individual (shaky as those rights may be these days), would be the wrong move for California residents. Were secession to pass: between Governor ‘Moonbeam’ and Commissar Feinstein, every non-conformist living in the state would probably be rounded up by SJW storm troopers and interned in ‘pelican bay’ by the end of the year. Would you trust them to draw-up your constitutional charter? To be your new Washington or Jefferson?
[An excerpt from Chapter 10, Road to Serfdom (University of Chicago Press, 1944)]
All power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. Lord Acton
We must now examine a belief from which many who regard the advent of totalitarianism as inevitable derive consolation and which seriously weakens the resistance of many others who would oppose it with all their might if they fully apprehended its nature. It is the belief that the most repellent features of the totalitarian regimes are due to the historical accident that they were established by groups of blackguards and thugs. Surely, it is argued, if in Germany the creation of a totalitarian regime brought the Streichers and Killingers, the Leys and Heines, the Himmlers and Heydrichs to power, this may prove the viciousness of the German character, but not that the rise of such people is the necessary consequence of a totalitarian system. Why should it not be possible that the same sort of system, if it be necessary to achieve important ends, be run by decent people for the good of the community as a whole?
We must not deceive ourselves into believing that all good people must be democrats or will necessarily wish to have a share in the government. Many, no doubt, would rather entrust it to somebody whom they think more competent. Although this might be unwise, there is nothing bad or dishonorable in approving a dictatorship of the good. Totalitarianism, we can already hear it argued, is a powerful system alike for good and evil, and the purpose for which it will be used depends entirely on the dictators. And those who think that it is not the system which we need fear, but the danger that it might be run by bad men, might even be tempted to forestall this danger by seeing that it is established in time by good men.
No doubt an English “fascist” system would greatly differ from the Italian or German models; no doubt if the transition were effected without violence, we might expect to get a better type of leader. And if I had to live under a fascist system I have no doubt that I would rather live under one run by Englishmen than under one run by anybody else. Yet all this does not mean that, judged on our present standards, a British fascist system would in the end prove so very different or much less intolerable than its prototypes. Continue reading “Why the Worst Get on Top”
The trouble with sectarians, whether they be libertarians, Marxists, or world-governmentalists, is that they tend to rest content with the root cause of any problem, and never bother themselves with the more detailed or proximate causes. The best, and almost ludicrous, example of blind, unintelligent sectarianism is the Socialist Labor Party, a venerable party with no impact whatsoever on American life. To any problem that the state of the world might pose: unemployment, automation. Vietnam, nuclear testing, or whatever, the SLP simply repeats, parrotlike: “Adopt socialism.” Since capitalism is allegedly the root cause of all these and other problems, only socialism will whisk them away, Period. In this way the sectarian, even if his spotting of the ultimate root cause should be correct, isolates himself from all problems of the real world, and, in further irony, keeps himself from having any impact toward the ultimate goal he cherishes.
On the question of war guilt, whatever the war, sectarianism raises its ugly, uninformed head far beyond the stagnant reaches of the Socialist Labor Party. Libertarians, Marxists, world-governmentalists. each from their different perspective, have a built-in tendency to avoid hothering about the detailed pros and cons of any given conflict. Each of them knows that the root cause of war is the nation State system; given the existence of this system, wars will always occur, and all States will share in that guilt. The libertarian, in particular, knows that States, without exception, aggress against their citizens, and knows also that in all wars each State aggresses against innocent civilians “belonging” to the other State.
Now this kind of insight into the root cause of war and aggression, and into the nature of thestateitself, is all well and good, and vitally necessary for insight into the world condition. But the trouble is that the libertarian tends to stop there. and evading the responsibility of knowing what is going on in any specific war or international conflict, he tends to leap unjustifiably to the conclusion that, in any war, all States are equallv guilty, and then to go about his business without giving the matter a second thought. In short, the libertarian (and the Marxist, and the world government partisan) tends to dig himself into a comfortable ‘Third Camp” position, putting equal blame on all sides to any conflict, and letting it go at that. This is a comfortable position to take because it doesn’t really alienate the partisans of either side. Both sides in any war will write this man off as a hopelessly “idealistic” and out-of-it sectarian. a man who is even rather lovable because he simply parrots his “pure” position without informing himself or taking sides on whatever war is raging in the world. In short, both sides will tolerate the sectarian precisely because he is irrelevant, and because his irrelevancy guarantees that he makes no impact on the course of events or on public opinion about these events.
No: Libertarians must come to realize that parroting ultimate principles is not enough for coping with the real world. Just because all sides share in the ultimate State-guilt, does not mean that all sides are equally guilty. On the contrary, in virtually every war, one side is far more guilty than the other, and on one side must be pinned the basic responsibility for aggression, for a drive for conquest, etc. But in order to find out which side to any war is the more guilty, we have to inform ourselves in depth about the history of that conflict, and that takes time and thought–and it also takes the ultimate willingness to become relevant by taking sides through pinning a greaterdegree of guilt on one side or the other.
So–let us become relevant; and, with that in mind, let us examine the root historical causes of the chronic as well as the current acute crisis in the Middle East; and let us do chis with a view to discovering and assessing the Guilty. Continue reading “War Guilt in the Middle East”
1918, as the guns of Europe fell silent in what would be remembered as one of the most horrific wars in human history; half a world away at the New York Central Railroad, out of the ‘hustle and bustle’ of the morning commute, rose a gigantic black pyramid.
Under a statue of ‘Nike‘ the Greek goddess of victory: 12,000 German ‘Pickelhaubes’ (Helmets) were stacked in triumph; adorned with flags, columns, cannons, and ornamental eagles…
The entire presentation seemed to shout out,
“The state triumphant!”
This was pageantry of the first order, Mussolini or Stalin would have been proud; had they been American.
It’s claimed that all the assembled gear came from a warehouse in Germany. But symbolic or not, for me, it’s difficult to look at those helmets without imagining the individuals who might have worn them, or how they may have died…
“But Hinton, fascism could never happen in America.”