Selective Amnesia There was a point to this. But I forgot.

Governments and Monopoly

Not many people (heck, nobody) know that I did a year of Economics as my Masters. I am not sure even my professors knew I did the course. It started out as a two year thingy, which I cut short to a year and few months, for I believed I got what I wanted, and only exams were to be attended.

That introduction is to ease you folks slowly into the main part of this post. One of the things we learn in Economics is that Monopoly is inefficient. A monopoly exists by artificially increasing demand, increasing prices, and forcing competition out. And Governments, as we know them today, is the best example of such a monopoly.

This is one of the reason why I am a libertarian with strong Anarcho Capitalist tendencies. I believe that we have absolutely no choice in the way we are being “governed”. Whatever little we have in the form of the universal adult franchise is taken away by the goons who stand for the elections. Each is as bad as the other, and the only choice left is to not have any.
The monopoly we call government needs to come down. Or more governments, and more forms of such governments be at force at the same time. In essence, a free-market system of government. Why can’t I treat parties/alliances like FMCG companies that give me different products? I could buy the BJP’s infrastructure product, the UPA’s Budget reforms, The left’s, hmmm, well, whatever, you get the point.

In short, I would have no government, rather, a bunch of parties doing different tasks at any given time. As I see it, there is absolutely no role for a traditional government in India anymore, save defence. We already have private entities doing many things that were originally the government’s – policing for instance.

(Disclaimer: This post is entirely a figment of my thoughts, and any resemblance to other posts, current or archived, is purely coincidental)

(Disclaimer 2: This post was ideated on my way back from Mumbai, on the rather long train journey. It has been reproduced verbatim from my thoughts. I have not bothered to structure it in any logical way. Nor have I bothered to see if somebody else on blogosphere or elsewhere share similar thoughts. I know there are many fools on this earth, me being one of them, and by nature we seldom differ. This disclaimer is to indemnify myself against future IP suits.)

Two sides of History

Somebody famous once said “There’s only one version of History – the winner’s”.

But History is not always a winner’s point of view. The loser has his own version of the story to say, and no matter what the victor does, the loser’s perspective will stay on and grow. First underground, then above, but in the shadows. Till the whole edifice that the victor build around him and his invincibility is challenged.

As an illustration – take the example of Attila the Hun.
He was the winner in the battle, and the war. He was probably the most effective of the conquerors of old Europe. He was by all accounts a “winner”. A brilliant tactician, he established the largest empire in Eastern and Central Europe. But do we have his version of the story?

The Romans and the Christians called him the Scourge of God. He was hated and disliked. If we only have the winner’s point of view of history, would Atilla call himself the Scourge of god? He would have been called the God’ General. Or Messiah.

But we are now stuck with Scourge of God. One event/topic. Two versions. Two books of History.

Innit?

History
An attempt to explain and take pride in our achievements, and justify our faults.

More on ethics

One another question I had about ethics is a question I think everyone of us needs to ask and find the answers for – Why do we all need to look outside of us for approval on anything we do? Are we all so lacking in self-confidence that anything we do should be approved by the society? Isn’t that what social ethics are for? Forcing us all to be tied down by what the society thinks is right or wrong, without giving us the chance to form our own impressions of right and wrong.

For instance, why shouldn’t I take pride in my achievement? Why shouldn’t I say I am good? I have the confidence in my own success and my abilities, and I don’t mind trumpeting the fact I am good. But I am immediately reprimanded – I am told that I shouldn’t be saying that I am good, others ought to.

Is that stupid or what?

Ethics

As is usual with me, this particular post is an extension of an argument I had offline with a friend.

Who, my contention was, is to say what is ethics? Who is the arbiter of what is ethical and what is not. Shouldn’t each one of us be the judge of our own system of ethics? How can one man or one group of people impose their idea of behaviour on a whole bunch of people? To me, culture, ethics and social systems were invented by person or persons, who, physically weak, would have absolutely no chance of winning war or love, and had to level the playing field a bit by imposing certain restrictions on who can do what.

Aren’t ethics then an imposition of one man’s idea of his life – and archaic at that?

The other point, as I’ve already mentioned, is that shouldn’t each one of us decide our own system of ethics, and it should be flexible and adapt to situations – I call it being amoral – not having a moral system – rather than being immoral. A person can be immoral according to public perception, but be absolutely true to his own system of beliefs. The point is, one man’s perversion is another man’s kink is another man’s daily routine. And what’s taboo in one society is ritual in another. Shouldn’t I then adapt my own system of ethics to reflect what is current to the society. I will have a better chance of living happily that way, instead of staying rigid to one school of thought.

I digress. What the point I was going to make is, shouldn’t I stay true to what I, under no external influence or duress, think is right?

Random post to keep my membership to the cartel alive

February 2 this year was Ayn Rand’s 100th B’day. And as a honorary member of the Cartel and a libertarian, here’s my obligatory post on Ayn Rand. I shall follow it with a little explanation of what to me is libertarianism.

Ayn Rand, no doubt, has influenced me. I loved a few of her books – Fountainhead, We the living (interminably long read though it was). Some I wanted to disagree with – Capitalism – The Unknown Ideal particularly (got a bit preachy it did).

But in the end, I doubt if I would have been able to defend my beliefs as well as I do, against a father and family, blind believers that they are in Government control, and against friends and wellwishers who seem to think I am out of my (normally sane) mind.

But I have, and that is due in not small measures to Ayn Rand’s books, and my subsequent reading up. For that I shall always be grateful.

That concludes my homage to Rand.

Prakash writes what Libertarianism is all about, to him. He calls it total self-ownership.

To me though, libertarianism can be concluded in one phrase I have often said, to friends and co workers.

Nobody influences me. I influence nobody.

Imagine, for a moment, what that means, if followed in spirit and letter. You get to live your life the way you want, without interference from anyone. You would not go around shoving advice, especially bad, on to others (that alone will make life on this planet simpler and better) and no one does too.

Of course, that means my job as a copywriter is throws out of the window. In which case, I shall take up cultural anthropology.

Give them some credit.

As a long time computer user, and a web guy [:)], you can say I’ve pretty much used all operating systems and all kinds of software.

While I’m in no way an expert, much less am I proficient in all kinds of computing, I do know my way around operating systems and have some kind of programming knowledge. I’ve used most of the currently available software suites and office automation applications, have used graphic editors and tools, development environments and editors.

I do think, taking all in all, Microsoft’s managed to do something that most others haven’t. And that’s making the PC more novice friendly. Hence, spreading and enhancing their popularity.