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 2^nd 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

_________________________________

The post The Emergence of Sanatana Marxism appeared first on Actual Anarchy.

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).

Therefore, it makes sense to leave people alone. There is nothing wrong in recognizing “right to self-determination” which is not only an international law but also a natural right. Forcing people to live with you is an assault on the principles and axioms of liberty, consent and choice, in general. Secessionism is not a modern political concept. It existed before and it will continue to exist, because diversity is beautiful. Division of labor and specialization is a natural phenomenon. To condemn this natural tendency is not right because values are subjective and it cannot be legislated. Institutionalization of Union of India was a herculean task during the period 1947-1955. Why was it difficult? Because, Indians do not share the same spirit of nationalism (aka nationazism), cultural norms, history and etc. Building a state of unity in this regard is an assignment of history manipulation. Using the same line of thinking, I anticipate that social unrest (with reference to caste-ism, jobless growth, regional sentiments) is certain (in the next few years). Recently, South Indian regional states felt “ignored” on the domain of fiscal spending (despite paying more taxes to the central government, compared to North Indian states).

Kashmir was not part of modern India. Kashmiris and Khalistanis, unlike other separatists in 1947-1950, were not privileged for a “vox pop” on the issue of statehood. Today, the Government of India continues to commit legal atrocities against the separatists. My point is not to get into useless debate on the topic of separation-ism, but to reflect upon the public policies and social cognition of secessionism and statism. Statism is not a natural philosophy. It is a bad idea which believes in the expression of violence, intimidation, expropriation and plundering. Choice is yours on whose side would you opt for, without resorting to violence? If you are unhappy with the mainstream domain (joint family system), let there be a “liberty to peacefully secede” away. Post-referendum, how people manage their new family is their business and you do not have any obligation to intervene in anyone else’s and vice-versa.

_________________________

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

The post Self-determination rights, and India! appeared first on Actual Anarchy.

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.

The post How Indian vernacular languages strengthen Statism, not Secessionism appeared first on Actual Anarchy.

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.  

By means of mathematical and statistical methods, an econometrician establishes functional relationships between various economic variables. For example, personal consumer outlays are related to personal disposable income and interest rates, while fixed capital spending is explained by the past stock of capital, interest rates, and economic activity. A collection of such various estimated relations—i.e., equations—constitute an econometric model.

By applying mathematics, mainstream economics is attempting to follow in the footsteps of natural sciences. In the natural sciences, the employment of mathematics enables scientists to formulate the essential nature of objects. In short, by means of a mathematical formula, the response of objects to a particular stimulus in a given condition is captured. Consequently, within these given conditions, the same response will be obtained time and again. The same approach, however, is not valid in economics. For economics is supposed to deal with human beings and not objects.

Like other forms of statistical analysis, badly specified econometric models may show a spurious correlation where two variables are correlated but causally unrelated. Economist Ronald Coase is widely reported to have said: “If you torture the data long enough, it will confess the way you like”. Thus, econometricians tend to believe “Data must be wrong if I do not get what I want to conclude.”

Mathematics can sometimes make smart people “dumb”. Let me explain what I mean by this. I don’t mean that it is dumb not to be good at mathematics. After all, mathematics is a highly abstract and challenging discipline requiring many years (decades even) of study, and there are plenty of very smart people who have little understanding of it, and little ability to use it. What I mean is that mathematics quite often bamboozles people into accepting very silly arguments — arguments that are so silly that if you stated them without draping them in a mathematical negligee, you would instantly become an object of ridicule to all those people who flunked out at basic algebra back in high school.

The danger of mathematical arguments is that a person can sometimes follow an absurd path of reasoning without being alerted to its absurdity, due to the fact that their mind is so lost in the verbiage of mathematical equations that their common sense fails to penetrate it. As an economics teacher, I have to guard against this problem constantly in my students. One of the main difficulties in teaching applied mathematics is that students can become bamboozled by the mathematical machinery they are using, to the detriment of their ability to reason sensibly about the nature of the problem that the mathematics is designed to describe. Mathematics is meant to augment logical argument, by providing the ability to clearly define a problem and to ensure that all necessary assumptions are made explicit in the analysis. Its advantage over “literary” argumentative methods (when used properly) is that it ensures that the analyst is not making assumptions that he is unaware of, and is not making leaps in the argument that are illogical. However, when mathematical arguments are used to obscure, rather than enlighten, the result is that they tend to hide assumptions that are being made.

Economist Robert Lucas criticised the use of overly simplistic econometric models of the macroeconomy to predict the implications of economic policy, arguing that the structural relationships observed in historical models break down if decision makers adjust their preferences to reflect policy changes. He also argued that policy conclusions drawn from contemporary large-scale macroeconometric models were invalid as economic actors would change their expectations of the future and adjust their behavior accordingly.

The problems of prices and costs have been treated also with mathematical methods. There have even been economists who held that the only appropriate method of dealing with economic problems is the mathematical method and who derided the logical economists as “literary” economists. If this antagonism between the logical and the mathematical economists were merely a disagreement concerning the most adequate procedure to be applied in the study of economics, it would be superfluous to pay attention to it. The better method would prove its pre-eminence by bringing about better results. It may also be that different varieties of procedure are necessary for the solution of different problems and that for some of them one method is more useful than the other.

In physics, we are faced with changes occurring in various sense phenomena. We discover regularity in the sequence of these changes and these observations lead us to the construction of a science of physics. We know nothing about the ultimate forces actuating these changes. They are, for the searching mind, ultimately given and defy any further analysis. What we know from observation is the regular concatenation of various observable entities and attributes. It is this mutual interdependence of data that the physicist describes in differential equations.

In praxeology, the first fact we know is that men are purposively intent upon bringing about some changes. It is this knowledge that integrates the subject matter of praxeology and differentiates it from the subject matter of the natural sciences. We know the forces behind the changes, and this aprioristic knowledge leads us to a cognition of the praxeological processes. The physicist does not know what electricity “is.” He knows only phenomena attributed to something called electricity. But the economist knows what actuates the market process. It is only thanks to this knowledge that he is in a position to distinguish market phenomena from other phenomena and to describe the market process. Now, the mathematical economist does not contribute anything to the elucidation of the market process. He merely describes an auxiliary makeshift employed by the logical economists as a limiting notion, the definition of a state of affairs in which there is no longer any action and the market process has come to a standstill. That is all he can say. What the logical economist sets forth in words when defining the imaginary constructions of the final state of rest and the evenly rotating economy and what the mathematical economist himself must describe in words before he embarks upon his mathematical work, is translated into algebraic symbols.

A superficial analogy is spun out too long, that is all. Both the logical and the mathematical economists assert that human action ultimately aims at the establishment of such a state of equilibrium and would reach it if all further changes in data were to cease. But the logical economist knows much more than that. He shows how the activities of enterprising men, the promoters and speculators, eager to profit from discrepancies in the price structure, tend toward eradicating such discrepancies and thereby also toward blotting out the sources of entrepreneurial profit and loss. He shows how this process would finally result in the establishment of the evenly rotating economy. This is the task of economic theory. The mathematical description of various states of equilibrium is mere play.

Using Ludwig von Mises school of thought, I too believe that economics is not about goods and services; it is about the actions of living men. Its goal is not to dwell upon imaginary constructions such as equilibrium. These constructions are only tools of reasoning. The sole task of economics is the analysis of the actions of men. Next time your economics prof. endeavors to teach you “econometrics” in class, kindly request him/her to refute this blog first.

Thank you

_________________________

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
_________________________

The post Say NO to Econometrics appeared first on Actual Anarchy.

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
_________________________

The post Shut up, Professor! appeared first on Actual Anarchy.

 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
_________________________

The post Messonomics appeared first on Actual Anarchy.

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

_______________________________

The post Why is India not so rich? appeared first on Actual Anarchy.

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.

The post Meet the woman who fought against “Breast Tax” appeared first on Actual Anarchy.

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.

On the other hand, it is vague to learn that individuals pay “property tax” to the government for owning the property personally. Does it indicate that even private property belongs to the government. If yes, then how do you own yourself? If no, then why would you pay for owning your labor or wealth? Kindly don’t bring the “who will build the roads?” theses here.

It’s not about roads.

It is about axioms like self-ownership, property rights and freedom. Think.

The government doesn’t have to pay fees or even taxes for the creation or maintenance of their personal possession i.e public property. It’s you who has to comply with the draconian land rules/laws of the unaccountable government. If this isn’t modern slavery then what is?

Public property is a vivid manifestation of tragedy of the commons policy. No matter how many euphemisms are played, the political fraternity (monopolist) is the “owner” of public property as they don’t have to pay fees for its utility. It’s you who is being forced to eternally pay for something which you don’t own or dislike to use for its inadequate maintenance.

Stop being public. Start being private.
______________________________

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.

Twitter a/c
@meritocratic 

_______________________________

The post Contradiction 101: “Public Property” appeared first on Actual Anarchy.

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?

Whereas, the media freedom (2016) is ranked at 136 out of 180 nations. Least said about the government involvement (interventionism) in mainstream media and social media, the better.

On social progress (2016), India stands at 98 out of 133 nations. To be very frank, as long as the principles of self-ownership and personal freedom are socially underestimated, no matter how many euphemisms our political rulers use, India’s score on this global index will stay static.  

Coming to Gender Inequality Index (2016) and Human Development Index (2016), India stands at 125 out of 159 nations and 131 nations out of 189 nations ‘respectively’. Since many people do not even believe that they are obliged to one another for maximizing the size of government for such ratings, otherwise how would their collective nescience create a society of expropriation and anti-humanism? The scope of human capital has been vociferously quantified and horrendously determined by the government, post-independence. This has generated a coupon of deficiency in our social relations and social capital. Therefore, the developmental opportunities are dependent on the hierarchical structure than on the spontaneous order [of our system]. Question: Is it a purest sign of independence?

Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. The unchecked, unacceptable and unaccountable power in our political structure is the root cause of corruption. Corruption is also about maintaining the monopoly on power. That is why the comfort of our master (government) is dependent upon the abundant supply of slaves (people). What kind of independence should we genuinely celebrate, today?

In essence, independence is the absence of government coercion. Nothing more, but certainly nothing less.

Hans-Hermann Hoppe describes a “free and independent society” as the absence of aggression against one’s body and property. Now, to be very frank, on introspecting more about communal tensions, cow vigilantes, moral policing, government sponsored trollers, Aadhar card, spiral of silence (anti-free speech attitude), film censorships, book bans, rising inflation, bemusing GST system, jobless growth, crony socialism, etc., I am doubtful of the “Independence Day” celebration in our current atmosphere.

Nevertheless, friends, Happy Dependence Day! Don’t tell me “move to Pakistan” because you don’t own our India.  

________________________________

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.

Twitter a/c
@meritocratic
_______________________________

For the history you didn’t learn in school, check out Liberty Classroom:

The post Happy Dependence Day, India appeared first on Actual Anarchy.