Gandhi is not the Prince of Peace & Non-Violence.
That is Jesus Christ.
Gandhi is actually the Patron of State Violence Against Alcohol.
And it is fitting that from tomorrow, which is Gandhi’s birthday, he becomes the Patron of State Violence Against Smokers.
However, I have my doubts about the ability of our The State to effectively impose the ban on smoking in private spaces.
Repeat: Private spaces.
We are allowed to smoke on our pot-holed streets – which belong to The State and are thus public property.
We are not allowed to smoke in offices, bars and restaurants, all of which belong to private people, and are thus Private Property.
Technically, The State should not be allowed to poke its long Pinocchio nose into private property. So the supreme court is just an arm of The State. The judges are not defenders of individual rights and private property. They are part of the organized senseless violence that characterizes our The State.
Yet, as I just said, I have my doubts about the ability of our The State to effectively impose the ban on smoking in private spaces.
Some good news has just come in from Hyderabad, capital of Andhra Pradesh, where tobacco is grown. The news has it that the government there is going to go slow on enforcing the diktat of our Health Dictator, mr. ramadoss, of the PMK Party.
I am told that in Bengali PMK stands for Pondhpaka Mi Korchhi. I am sure that in West Bengal too this ban will not be enforced at all – because the Bengalis are big smokers and do not take kindly to Pondhpaka Mi Korchhi activism.
So I am confident that ramadoss’ dictatorship will collapse.
I recall another time, some years back, when the supreme court banned smoking in trains and railway stations. I was traveling by train from Mangalore to Poona, all along the Western Ghats, and when the train stopped at some obscure station I got off to enjoy a smoke on the platform.
Immediately a burly cop accosted me muttering something or the other about our supreme court.
I raised by voice to its Most Thunderous Level and told the feller to F O! That’s it, dude, F O.
I told him to go after rapists, murderers and thieves – and leave me alone.
He left.
Some hours later, the train stopped at another obscure station and I stepped out once again for a smoke.
This time, one of my fellow passengers also alighted and lit up a cigarette.
Then, looking at me smoking he said, in a conspiratorial aside, “If the policeman comes, you tell him to F O.”
I politely declined.
I told the man, “I fought for my Freedom; now you must fight for yours.”
I am still fighting for my Freedom today.
Are you?
Austro-Libertarian Natural Order Philosophy From Indyeah
Individualistic Austro-Libertarian Natural Order Philosophy From Indyeah
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Monday, September 29, 2008
A Revolution in Distribution
The German wholesaler Metro AG, which has been operating in Bangalore for quite a few years now, has received the official nod for beginning operations in West Bengal, despite opposition from a key minister. (The chief minister intervened.) Read the news here.
Why is there so much opposition to supermarkets? And to FDI in this sector?
Metro is a big player in wholsesale trading. They do not retail. Thus, the ToI lead edit of today misses the point: this is not a “retail revolution”; rather, this is a “wholesale revolution.”
Now, all the politicians who oppose FDI in retail do so in the interest of the small cornershopwallahs – the so-called “mom-and-pop stores.”
But these small retail shops will only benefit from a wholesale revolution!
In India, wholesaling is very inefficient. Small shopkeepers suffer because of this. The distributional chain becomes excessively long, and includes multiple wholesalers as well as sub-wholesalers. With wholesale supermarkets located in easily accessible parts of the city (unlike the wholesalers of today), small shopkeepers will be able to buy their stocks at cheaper rates. Their profit margins will improve. Their customers will also gain.
But who thinks of the consumer?
Actually, big-ticket retailing is in the interest of the consumer. And here FDI must be allowed. Wal-Marts in every city and town will deliver big gains to ordinary folk. And it is simply not true that these Wal-Marts will lead to the closure of all our mom-and-pop stores. The reason is simple: The bulk of our consumers are poor daily wagers. They do not buy big bottles of shampoo; they buy a small sachet instead. They do not buy rice and wheat in big sacks; they can only afford to buy half a kilo at a time. For all these small consumers, the mom-and-pop store will remain the only retail outlet of choice. Thus, wholesale supermarkets like Metro will be good for these small consumers. It makes no sense at all to oppose Metro’s operations. Efficient wholesaling is in the best interests of both small shopkeepers as well as their poor customers.
I have always been strongly in favour of increasing the efficiency of the distributional chain by allowing retail and wholesale supermarkets – and I have always been in favour of allowing FDI in this area. Here is an article from the ToI I wrote 3 years ago.
FDI in distribution will bring in capital as well as knowledge. There will be a huge impact on the real estate market. Our politicians are foolishly opposing what is in the best interests of all of us – not only as consumers, but equally as small shopkeepers.
Why is there so much opposition to supermarkets? And to FDI in this sector?
Metro is a big player in wholsesale trading. They do not retail. Thus, the ToI lead edit of today misses the point: this is not a “retail revolution”; rather, this is a “wholesale revolution.”
Now, all the politicians who oppose FDI in retail do so in the interest of the small cornershopwallahs – the so-called “mom-and-pop stores.”
But these small retail shops will only benefit from a wholesale revolution!
In India, wholesaling is very inefficient. Small shopkeepers suffer because of this. The distributional chain becomes excessively long, and includes multiple wholesalers as well as sub-wholesalers. With wholesale supermarkets located in easily accessible parts of the city (unlike the wholesalers of today), small shopkeepers will be able to buy their stocks at cheaper rates. Their profit margins will improve. Their customers will also gain.
But who thinks of the consumer?
Actually, big-ticket retailing is in the interest of the consumer. And here FDI must be allowed. Wal-Marts in every city and town will deliver big gains to ordinary folk. And it is simply not true that these Wal-Marts will lead to the closure of all our mom-and-pop stores. The reason is simple: The bulk of our consumers are poor daily wagers. They do not buy big bottles of shampoo; they buy a small sachet instead. They do not buy rice and wheat in big sacks; they can only afford to buy half a kilo at a time. For all these small consumers, the mom-and-pop store will remain the only retail outlet of choice. Thus, wholesale supermarkets like Metro will be good for these small consumers. It makes no sense at all to oppose Metro’s operations. Efficient wholesaling is in the best interests of both small shopkeepers as well as their poor customers.
I have always been strongly in favour of increasing the efficiency of the distributional chain by allowing retail and wholesale supermarkets – and I have always been in favour of allowing FDI in this area. Here is an article from the ToI I wrote 3 years ago.
FDI in distribution will bring in capital as well as knowledge. There will be a huge impact on the real estate market. Our politicians are foolishly opposing what is in the best interests of all of us – not only as consumers, but equally as small shopkeepers.
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Who Owns Your Soul?
At the Liberal Symposium on Saturday, Father Cedric Prakash, a human rights activist from Gujarat, spoke of a new legislation passed by the Gujarat assembly that required any person who changes his religion to not only inform the local administration but also take their concurrence.
What is the libertarian take on such a law?
At the symposium, I made the point that each individual is the proprietor of his own soul. He alone is the deciding authority as to which god is allowed entry into his soul. He can choose to be an atheist. He can also sell his soul - so conversions induced by economic inducements are OK.
Of course, those in authority have sold their souls to the Devil.
But that's another story!
This legislation should be struck down by the processes of judicial review.
Note how private property is the only foundation of a secure Liberty.
And liberty always means Liberty from The State.
What is the libertarian take on such a law?
At the symposium, I made the point that each individual is the proprietor of his own soul. He alone is the deciding authority as to which god is allowed entry into his soul. He can choose to be an atheist. He can also sell his soul - so conversions induced by economic inducements are OK.
Of course, those in authority have sold their souls to the Devil.
But that's another story!
This legislation should be struck down by the processes of judicial review.
Note how private property is the only foundation of a secure Liberty.
And liberty always means Liberty from The State.
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Ron Paul Grills Ben Bernanke
This video of Representative Ron Paul grilling the Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke is a must see.
What is most interesting is towards the end, when Ben Bernanke responds to Ron Paul's question asking as to where exactly the Fed gets all its authority from to create money and credit endlessly out of thin air.
Ben Bernanke mentions the US Constitution, which gives Congress the "power to coin the currency."
Ron Paul butts in stressing the word "coin."
And therein lies the rub, for there is no authority to print fiat paper money.
Ron Paul also says that "you cannot fight inflation with more inflation."
And I loved his reference to the Austrian school of economics and to Ludwig von Mises in particular.
We must all support this great truth-telling politician of America who knows his onions.
What is most interesting is towards the end, when Ben Bernanke responds to Ron Paul's question asking as to where exactly the Fed gets all its authority from to create money and credit endlessly out of thin air.
Ben Bernanke mentions the US Constitution, which gives Congress the "power to coin the currency."
Ron Paul butts in stressing the word "coin."
And therein lies the rub, for there is no authority to print fiat paper money.
Ron Paul also says that "you cannot fight inflation with more inflation."
And I loved his reference to the Austrian school of economics and to Ludwig von Mises in particular.
We must all support this great truth-telling politician of America who knows his onions.
Friday, September 26, 2008
The Obstacle of Customs
There is an interesting story today about Big B and his son getting into trouble with that great horror, the Customs Department, over stuff they brought in from London.
My question is: Is the Customs Department an “obstacle” or is it doing something “useful”?
Think about it.
And then think of Free Trade Across All Borders.
Recommended reading: The Essential Frederic Bastiat (Liberty Institute, 2007).
Bastiat is the only classical economist who hated the customs department and saw through the “indirect use of force” that this obstacle to trade actually is.
He gave an excellent example: A steel magnate in Paris is unhappy about cheap steel coming into France from Belgium. He can now do two things:
One – he can arm 100 men, send them to the border, with instructions to shoot anyone who brings steel into France from Belgium.
But such a course of action is not feasible.
So he takes the other option.
He goes to the government minister of trade and pays for protection. The minister posts armed men at the border (the customs department) at the taxpayers’ expense, with instructions to shoot anyone who brings in steel from Belgium.
The minister and the steel magnate share the high profits now made possible by this “indirect use of force.”
The taxpayers who paid for the customs men now pay even more for steel.
Away with this Obstacle!
Let trade be free!
My question is: Is the Customs Department an “obstacle” or is it doing something “useful”?
Think about it.
And then think of Free Trade Across All Borders.
Recommended reading: The Essential Frederic Bastiat (Liberty Institute, 2007).
Bastiat is the only classical economist who hated the customs department and saw through the “indirect use of force” that this obstacle to trade actually is.
He gave an excellent example: A steel magnate in Paris is unhappy about cheap steel coming into France from Belgium. He can now do two things:
One – he can arm 100 men, send them to the border, with instructions to shoot anyone who brings steel into France from Belgium.
But such a course of action is not feasible.
So he takes the other option.
He goes to the government minister of trade and pays for protection. The minister posts armed men at the border (the customs department) at the taxpayers’ expense, with instructions to shoot anyone who brings in steel from Belgium.
The minister and the steel magnate share the high profits now made possible by this “indirect use of force.”
The taxpayers who paid for the customs men now pay even more for steel.
Away with this Obstacle!
Let trade be free!
Bailout Reader
The Mises Institute has compiled a long “bailout reader” comprising 50 or more articles they have published on the subject. If you want to be totally informed about the US Crash then spend your weekend reading these articles. To access the reader, click here.
Liberal Symposium Today
Today is a great day for India’s liberals, for we are holding a full-day symposium in Delhi that will be addressed by John, Lord Alderdice, president of Liberal International. If you are in Delhi today, do drop by at the FICCI auditorium on Tansen Marg anytime between 9 am and 6 pm.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)