The "Good" Life

In the Market Society, every individual survives by satisfying his Customer - who is his King, his Lord. Whereas the actual King taxes him, the Customer-King is his Patron, who understands and appreciates his Product. He comes in the shape of Man - and namaste means "The god in me salutes the god in you."




So, as the Dylan song goes:

It may be the Devil,
Or it may be the Lord,
But you gotta serve somebody.

Thus, to serve The State is to serve the Devil. To serve the Customer is to serve the Lord. If you do so honestly and faithfully, you will surely prosper. Your life will be a "good" one.


The question then arises about "politics." How much of this do "good people" need in their lives? I thought up the answer as follows:


Suppose we are all citizens of a small town. In the town, there is a Town Hall - for "civic politics." And there are bars, cafes, theatres, nightlife and so many other diversions and entertainments. Would you like to attend a Town Hall meeting every day? Every other day? Or only once in a long, long while? Quite obviously, the "good life" contains very little politics.


But this much "free politics" is an essential component of Liberty. There must be Town Hall meetings sometimes, when important issues arise that affect all. In Goa, for example, I would recommend town hall meetings over the issue of State Police harassment of ganja-charas tourists - who are their Customers, and from whom they would like repeat business. Without the essential Liberty of free, civic politics, there is no way of acting "politically" to solve this problem.


But once the purpose is attained, and police harrassment is permanently eliminated, it must be business as usual. The "good life."


Democratic socialism - or Statism - with all its "multi-party" gangs of "politicians" - has had one dreadful impact: they have politicized everything. Peter Bauer was the first to point to the "politicisation of economic life" under Statism. With rampant interventionism, businessmen devote more time to politics than enterprise. Politics determines everything. Thus, "democratic socialism" means nothing other than total politicisation, while a Free Market Society is its very opposite.


So, in socialist Goa these days, there is a great deal of "politics" over what language a child should learn. As if such decisions must be made by "elected representatives" and not by the parents, who would surely consult the child. If there was no State Education, this decision would be taken by individuals in a free market for knowledge.


This politics is a disease - and it has nothing to do with the "civic politics" of a Town Hall Meeting. Yet, we don't want too many town hall meetings to attend, do we? We would rather attend to business, or pursue leisure, than spend time on free, civic politics.


In the Olde City of London, the "one square mile" that has preserved its civic independence and traditions for over 800 years without ever increasing its "territory," they elect a Lord Mayor and two Sheriffs once a year - and everyone returns to "mind his own business" after that, for another year. These public officials, on the other hand, lose - for they are unpaid, and their businesses might suffer. Yet, this "politics" is important - for this is what has kept the King out of the City, right to this day. But the real purpose of the citizens in not politics; it is commerce. The City is the epicentre of Capitalism - or should I say "was"?


For serious students I recommend Anthony de Jasay's Before Resorting to Politics.

Why Socialism Is Anti-Social

What is a "social institution"? I would insist that pubs, bars, chai shops, cafes and the like, where people "hang around" and chat, meet passing strangers, exchange news, discuss politics and so on, are the true social institutions - and they come from The Market (if they are allowed to). It is The Market that is the "foremost social institution."

Note that no one goes to a government office to just hang around and enjoy some beers and suchlike; to "socialise." The government is not a social institution. Its function is something else.

What is the function of government?

To answer that, ask yourself the question: What will happen if we abolish The State? Most ordinary people will be horrified and think they will become prey to murderers, rapists, looters and dacoits who would run riot. This is the "excuse" why The State exists - in the mind of the common man.

Now, murderers, dacoits and the like are "anti-social" - and The State is supposed to act against them. That is its ONLY real role - act against anti-socials. But don't be anti-social yourself.

Something else happens under Socialism. Under the socialists and welfarists and their crony inflationists, The State takes on such a huge role and consumes so much of society's resources that it becomes "anti-social" itself. A long gravy train, a huge basket of spoils. All these resources are sucked out of the people - and that is surely extremely anti-social in a predominantly poor country.

The State-owned Industrial Sector - Air India, the Railways, Electricity Boards, steel plants and hotels - is our nation's "common loss." Though ministers and baboos gain.

Democratic Legislation is another big spoiler - for it outlaws innumerable exchanges, and sends the State Police to act against market society, and therefore be "anti-social" itself; predatory. Instead of going after the murderers and dacoits, they go against businessmen. Like ganja-charas farmers and dealers. Tyranny ensues.

Further, the vast maze of bureaucratic regulation established by "subordinate legislation" ends up in reality as "predatory" on all peaceful market activities. 

According to their professors and intellectuals, it is The State that is Society - and parliament is the "social institution." Not The Market. It is all about the State, the vast Nation, the Party and their Leader. And their Central Planners. And all their 5-Year Plans.

This is not a picture of happy people peacefully creating wealth for themselves in free markets. Rather, this is a State that consumes huge amounts of the precious Capital of the people in order to achieve "social objectives." These objectives are decided within the black box of The State - education, rural employment generation, free rice and wheat. Tax parasites consume all this wealth via The State - and this is "anti-social." In Nehru's time, the social objective was "a socialistic pattern of society" - for which purpose our The State built steel plants!

And as far as pubs, bars, chai-shops and cafes are concerned - I am lucky to be in Goa, but in much of the territory these are discouraged by State diktat.

In the meantime, Justice has been forgotten. Indeed, "social justice" is anti-social as well.

Thus, the Science of Government indicates that this is a very dangerous institution if it ever exceeds its narrow limits. Then, The Market is stifled. And all-round predation results. Bastiat called it "universal plunder." To him, such a vast State was "a grand fiction by which everyone tries to live off everyone else." The only solution, he said, was NO PLUNDER. That requires Liberty and Private Property - and not socialism.

Sociaism is not about Society as it really exists, which is the Market Society. Socialism is the glorification of The State - and using State Force to create a New Society (like Nehru's "socialistic patterm"). Socialism is really Statism. It is deeply anti-market. Hence it is anti-social.

The idea of "government" (which is "local") is thus very different from the idea of The State (which also happens to be centralised).

But even here, I champion the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. A gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone.

On Crimes Against Parliament

My new-found chillum-yaar, a young Englishman named Matt, offered the term "victimless crime" to define the illegal deed we were so joyfully indulging in.

I pointed out that this crime is not victimless, for there is a body purporting to be injured by the act - Parliament. It is Parliament that says this is a crime - against its own majority.

Later in the day, we were joined by a young English girl who had studied political phisosophy at university and now worked at treating crack and heroin addicts. She called herself a "cannabis girl" - and believed this Holy Herb ought to be legal.

I was more interested in her political philosophy and found it surprisingly statist. And a quote from Mises just appeared to drum the point home:

The [social democrat] dictator does not aim at conditions that keep the people happy. Rather, he aims at conditions that keep him - the dictator - happy, even though the people may be miserable. The cattle rancher is also a benevolent despot.

Think about it.


Socialist democracy is dictatorship - because of "inflated legislation."


Liberty is a "private law society."


NO LEGISLATION!

The Real Problem - The State

The results of the latest population count - the census - is out. Oh my! So many people in India. Perhaps the figure 1.2 billion is staggering - but this is a staggeringly huge country. There is abundant open space - as here on the Western Ghats. The cities are "overcrowded" - not "overpopulated."

One basic point is being missed in all these discussions and debates - and that is, how do we get all this Labour to combine with more and more Capital?

With more Capital, the productivity of labour will rise, and wages will rise as well. The path requires Free Enterprise and Free Capital Flows from abroad - and this means Big Business: "mass production for mass consumption." Laissez faire Capitalism.

Unfortunately, the way we are proceeding under our current The State is the very opposite: Capital Consumption. All "welfare" is consumption, not investment. This is why roads are never built. And hordes of lackeys employed.

The people of India are all hard-working and honest - and they are our greatest resource. If they are freed of inflationism designed to finance welfarism, they will themselves accumulate Capital and engage in Capitalism. Liberty, Property, Sound Money - that is all they need.

In such a poor country, and with such huge numbers of the poverty-stricken, inflationist-welfarism should be seen as criminally insane. Such colossal Capital Consuption will only destroy the nation, and all the 1.2 billion people in it.

We are completely wrong to believe that The State can bring about "economoic development." Such good things can only be brought about by indivdual action - of saving, investing and so on. Individuals accumulate Capital - and then all become investors. As well as consumers. Standards of living keep rising steadily.

If this be "economic development" then it must be said that our The State is preventing it from happening. That, indeed, is our great intellectual error: the "conflict of visions" between Peter Bauer and Gunnar Myrdal, the former for The Market, and the latter for the Planner. Myrdal shared the Nobel prize with Hayek! And the Indian State hugely honoured him.

If you want to study "development economics" from a free market perspective, that of a "classical liberal," read Peter Bauer. He pioneered the study of the "informal economy" found throughout the Third World, and testimony to the capitalistic instincts of the people.

The Census is just a total. But what really matters for all the individuals comprising that total is the Capital with which he can combine his labour. We do not need to control our numbers; rather, we need to cut down The State. It is Consuming all our Precious Capital.

Ignorant Despots

Just another of those days in an Indian "tourist paradise" where ganja-charas are illegal. Hate this Accursed Prohibition!

This Central Prohibition of Ganja-Charas by Legislation is based on Ignorance - in reality, the House of Commons sent a Royal Hemp Drug Commission here in the early 1900s to examine widespread use of these herbs in India - something unknown in Britain, where alcohol has always been the norm. This commission was asked to look into hemp drugs on three counts: whether they cause madness; whether they cause criminal behaviour; and whether they cause physical damage. The 12-volume report included thousands of "field visits" as well as the examination of thousands of "witnesses," is housed presently at the Indian Institute of Advanced Studies in Simla. It exonerated hemp drugs on all three counts. The British "studied the happiness" of their foreign subjects and did not interfere. They let us be happy in our own way.

The Government of Centralised India passed the Narcotics & Psychotropic Substances Act in the 1980s - because of foreign pressure: the USSA had launched its international "war on drugs," and the UN was in support. Who the fuck are they? But our Central State capitulated. Sovereignty? The botanical name of this Holy Herb is cannabis indica - and our The State would rather we buy the Tata Indica!

During my stint with The Economic Times (1998-2002) I conducted a debate on the issue of cannabis legalisation - and had the chief of the Narcotics Control Bureau opposite the Head of the Department of Psychiatry at the All-India Institute of Medical Sciences. The teacher of psychiatry reported that "there is no medical reason why the traditional bhang ki thandai should not be sold as an alternative to alcohol." The narco cop wrote that "ganja smokers are not trustworthy." Are cops trustworthy?

No siree. I have been all over India - including the dev-bhoomi north of Haridwar, and I have smoked with sadhus, all of whom have complained bitterly about the Prohibition of Ganja-Charas. In all the pilgrim towns of the area, alcohol, meat, fish and eggs are unavailable - by Custom. Yet, here, smoking is chillum in the open is perfectly respectable. This shows that this herb is a part of our Ancient Customs and Traditions, and that New Law - which is Legislation - ought not be allowed to interfere.

This is not a prohibition based on our ancient culture. Rather, it is based on the American culture of alcohol.

This is not Sovereignty.

Rather, this is bowing to dictates of foreign powers..

This is Corrupt.

This is Ignorant.

This is Despotism.

Shoot Every Sheriff!

Tyranny In Switzerland?

The Swiss are regarded as the hallmark of Democracy - indeed, theirs is "direct democracy." Further, theirs is, in technical language, also a "consociational democracy" because they are not a homogenous people: there is no Swiss language. There are Swiss-French, Swiss-Germans and Swiss-Italians - and all have a fair say in their own affairs. Even the tiny Romansch-speaking gypsies have their language and rights protected.

Further, all these linguistic groups consider themselves thoroughly "Swiss." German, French and Italian nationalism and war-mongering have never meant anything to them - and they have always stayed far away from war. Of course, each male citizen is armed, trained and ready to fight for his nation's defence if called upon.

The tiny, landlocked mountainous region is divided into 26 "cantons" - and each flies its own flag, as the illustration accompanying this post shows. These cantons are the "states of the federation" and there is a great deal of independence they enjoy. According to Wikipedia:

The cantons have a permanent constitutional status and, in comparison with the situation in other countries, a high degree of independence. Under the Federal Constitution, all 26 cantons are equal in status. Each canton has its own constitution, and its own parliament, government and courts.^[53] However, there are considerable differences between the individual cantons, most particularly in terms of population and geographical area. Their populations vary between 15,000 (Appenzell Innerrhoden) and 1,253,500 (Zurich), and their area between 37 km² (14 sq mi) (Basel-Stadt) and 7,105 km² (2,743 sq mi) (Graubünden). The Cantons comprise a total of 2,889 municipalities. 

I am fortunate to have had the occasion to visit Switzerland and spend a week or more there, travelling around a fair bit. I attended the Geneva Motor Show - and noted that the Swiss don't make cars! Geneva headquarters the World Trade Organisation. And an equestrian statue at a prominent location honours the founder of the International Red Cross. Peace, trade, direct democracy - these are Swiss "values." This landlocked, mountainous nation is one of the world's richest. Yet, even here, in a 500-year old souvenir store in Interlaken, I found carved, wooden figurines of Swiss women carrying firewood on their heads. Hard work - and Liberty (and Property) - and Peace - and Trade - created all the wealth they now enjoy. Some of their mountain cities boast the highest "quality of life" in the world.

Yet, my favourable impression of Switzerland has considerably dampened after many a discussion with a Swiss couple holidaying here. They are both over 60 - and she likes her morning spliff with her coffee. He wears his hair very long and smokes beedis. So we got talking about the Davidoff store in Geneva - where all the world's best tobaccos are available, and all the best cigars, and also beedis from India! Free trade!

And they told me the sad story of how all this is heavily taxed! Apparently, there are almost zero profits left in the tobacco trade these days.

They also told me some horrible stories about their country's stop-go attempts at the legalisation of cannabis. "Democratic referendum" was ordered thrice - and they lost every time. Which begs the question: How much "majoritarian politics" do we want in our lives? If Property is Inviolable, every Individual is Free - and that is what we need. The libertarian ball game is all about Individual Rights, Individual Liberty, Individual Property and the "pursuit of happiness" based on the subjective valuations of each individual mind. Then, if the majority prefer alcohol, they cannot trample on the rights of minorities who prefer other highs.

The Swiss suffer from overgovernment, it seemed to me.

Overgovernment in Switzerland?

In the papers today, there is a photo of a Swiss State official with our Central finance minister, the caption indicating that the Swiss State will force Swiss private bankers to reveal account details to our Predatory State and its Tax Collectors. Is this "diplomacy"? Won't all Swiss private bankers lose?

The Swiss have a very old Constitution, heavily "de-centralised." It is joked about Switzerland that they are a people proud to not know the name of their President. I tried it out while there - and each one of the over 100 Swiss people I asked confessed to not knowing their president's name. Where has their Constitution gone wrong that centralisation and over-government can happen here?

I came up with two answers - apart from the Inviolability of Private Property - both relevant to our times.

First: There must be constitutional limits on the powers of taxation.

Second: The power to produce money monopolistically must be taken away. Money must be "private."

With these new "limits" the ability of The State to fund itself will be drastically curtailed - and society will flourish. Capital will be Accumulated - privately. Civilisation will march along.

I also think certain pernicious taxes should be made illegal by Constitution - like customs duties. Thus, the power of The State to interfere between domestic and international prices will be taken away. No more protectionism. No more wars.


But it goes to show if the Swiss are being tyrannised - despite direct and consociational democracy - there is much we in India have to achieve, if we are to be Free.

The Lesson: Democracy and Liberty are not the same. The first is not a means to the second. Further, liberty and property matter more than The Vote.

To End Corruption, End Statism

Anna Hazare and his cohorts have thought of a strange way to end corruption - by creating another job for another bureaucrat in our The State! They want an Ombudsman (Lokayukta) for the Central State - never mind the fact that there is a Central Vigilance Commissioner (with Vigilance Officers in every department as well as every PSU) who have been unable to act against any corrupt person in 60 years. The Prevention of Corruption Act is old - and has never worked because our The Socialist State is corrupt by design. 

Any State that starts off in opposition to The Market will end up corrupt; will end up predatory. The solution does not lie in establishing more baboos to tackle the problem. Rather, the only solution lies in dismantling all State controls over economic activity and making Private Property inviolable by The State - that is, a New Constitutionalism. 

This new constitution should also privatise money - so The State cannot endlessly fund itself at our expense, which only aids the corrupt, the "tax parasites" in its employ. 

Similarly, the Public Industrial Sector was conceived in corruption - as a means by which socialist politicians and their henchmen could loot the people. Complete and total privatisation is the only answer to this manner of corruption that is part and parcel of this socialist State.

This is why I champion Liberty - which is Freedom from The State.

If Liberty prevails, the corrupt Narco Cops will be history.

And so on and so forth.

If bars require no excise license...


If street-vendors possess Liberty from the huftha-brigade - by Constitution.


If foreign trade and investment is free...

Liberty is the Solution.

Fight for Liberty - the only way to put an end to all political and administrative corruption.

As for Anna Hazare & Co. - theirs is just another tamasha. They must be thinking we are all a bunch of idiots to fall for this shit.