A very adult-y lesson:
In a public argument with a manchild who uses a lot of expletives, namecalling and emotions to make his point, it's better always to stick to Reason insofar as physical aggression is never resorted to by that weak and pathetic person.
Good ideas win out.
A reminder that you could've sold.
You could've caved into the urge of selling to buy lower.
You could've wasted time trading.
But you didn't, and just kept stacking and focusing on your work.
For yourself and for your family.
Keep at it you beautiful, hard-working, low-time-preference-having, relentlessly-saving bastard.
I just read an LLM-generated summary of 'Has government any role in money?' by Milton Friedman and Anna Schwartz
I get what Hoppe means when he criticises the use of empiricism in social sciences, especially economics.
In empiricism, you make a proposition, which may or may not be true, so it has to tested and validated through evidence and data. Even then, your proposition isn't necessarily true and is subject to falsification still.
So you're left with a situation where policy makers and governments keep testing their policies on civilians like they're lab rats.
Tyrranical policies like tariffs, financial surveillance and taxation are only bad if there is evidence and data that prove that they are bad.
Even if evidence and data say so, they don't necessarily mean the policies are bad. Somewhere, some variable needs to be tweaked and accounted for, so that the policy can be tried more effectively. The policy itself isn't bad. The lab rats on which they are tested are bad.
And so Friedman, having compared folks from the rationalist Austrian school as dogmatists/cultists in one of his public appearances, having played a role in the establishment of the strictly empiricist Chicago school, starts questioning the role of Government in the monetary market in the paper I mentioned above.
Even then, based on the summary I've been able to obtain, Friedman does not come to the correct conclusion that government has no role at all. He argues for a limited role, claiming that a free market in money is not practical due to what he believes is historical evidence, which validates another criticism that Austrian school folks like Hoppe levies on empiricists that they have a flawed understanding of causal links.
One of the best parts about rationalist philosophy is that it makes you more open to the possibility that a person can discover insights by simply reflecting upon himself, without going through a formal education, using the right words or having had an expansive experience of the world.
This possibility is accompanied also by an intellectual grounding.
You know that the truth exists.
You know that anyone can find it.
But you also accept that everybody might not.
Liberals, Conservatives and Socialists are merely useful ideological pawns for the ruling elite.
Pretty telling that property rights, sound money and self-ownership is never the subject of political discussions when it comes to the poor, downtrodden, minorities, oppressed, lower caste, working class, marginalised, etc.
The wars will never end.
The construction will never end.
The subsidies and freebies will never end.
The inflation rate will never go down.
That's the game.
If an Indian, in the name of being open-minded while studying social sciences and humanities, wants to explore foreign-origin ideologies and schools of thought like socialism, keynesianism, postmodernism, wokeism, empiricism, positivism, then by all means he can.
If knowledge is his goal, then nothing can be considered 'foreign'. That's cool.
But its odd when he dismisses, sidelines and scorns free market capitalism, austro-libertarianism, rationalism, kantianism, classical liberalism and realism.
If knowledge is his goal, why does the latter invoke a sense of dogmatic rejection of the latter?
Is it at all possible that a skewed methodology of acquiring and interpretating knowledge in social sciences can result in unfair interpretations of Indian culture and history, leading to him misinterpreting and often times detesting his own roots outright?
•Amend and butcher the constitution for 23 years post ratification
•Pass horrible laws unchallenged
•Introduce the basic structure doctrine
•Amendments and butchering cannot be undone now
•Which means horrible laws cannot be repealed easily
•Hold up the constitution like its some sacred book that protects the rights of Indians
Atleast it was clear and obvious that Indians were being robbed, bamboozled and duped when the Brits were here 🤣
Cypherpunks write code
Engineers build things
Entrepreneurs take risks
Farmers feed people
Teachers elevate minds
Doctors save lives
Workers make everything work
Human beings always act
Socialists, progressives, postmodernists, logical positivists, liberals and conservatives introduce the idea of power and exploitation into all of the above and make them unnecessarily political
Only in Rothbard's works have I found ideas that can systematically dismantle and destroy the entire ideology of Dravidianism politically, legally, ethically, morally, economically, culturally and spiritually, and at the same time offer an alternative that is far, far superior to it in every way mentioned.
The partial application of the libertarian ethic underpins the legal systems of almost every modern democratic country, including India. These laws were born not out of evidence-based analysis, historical continuity or testing, but through theories and treatises that informed those who set out to challenge the monarchies and dictators.
Back then it was simply called liberalism, till it was butchered over the decades by socialists, utilitarians and positivists.
Libertarianism is simply the old, original liberalism redefined and applied more consistently.
It takes the current set of basic legal principles like fundamental rights, rule of law, natural justice and improves upon it.
The libertarian ethic and the Austrian school of economic thought, what I call the Austro-libertarian body of ideas, are the only ones that can tackle Dravidianism and Periyarism on all fronts in the realm of ideas: moral, ethical, political, legal, cultural, spiritual and economic.
I do not see any other alternative for the future of Tamil society.
Moral and Ethical
The Libertarian ethic is rooted in the principles of non-aggression, self-ownership, voluntary exchange and association, natural rights and the rule of natural law arrived at through reason.
These principles offer a strong underpinning for an objective standard of justice that is consistent and universally applicable. It is not culture-specific.
It is an ethical and moral counter to the Dravidian ideology. Conservatives counter Dravidianism by dismissing that there is no such thing as universal morality or ethics. But that's not a good counter. That's running away from the fight. Ethics and morals do matter. Ideals matter.
Law and politics are normative in character. Avoiding normative stances means one is giving space for chaos and arbitrary power.
Without a consistent conception of justice, no society can function and no social order can emerge. The Libertarian ethic offers that in the most pragmatic way possible, in alignment with the nature of man. This is something that the conservatives lack.
Libertarianism can expose the moral and ethical bankruptcy of Dravidianism with a system of ideas that are actually rational in practice.
Periyarism is not rationalism like its proponents claim.
Libertarianism is the true rationalism.
Political and legal
Dravidianism uses quotas, subsidies, and freebies to win elections. It has always been their strategy.
It is not an economic policy that is meant to help people or actually does help people (as we'll see later).
It is a political policy meant to help themselves.
Conservatives, in the name of bringing about change, propose to do the same thing but merely replace one set of cronies and special interests with another, the ones that Dravidianism ignores.
This is just going around in circles with no end in sight. Words and narratives may differ, but conservatives in practice do not practice what they preach. They offer no real alternative. Just the same type of politics repackaged with a different garb.
Both sides abuse the constitution and the rule of law and use it as a bludgeon to give themselves more power when they are incumbents. The other side cries about it when they are in the opposition but do the same thing when they themselves come to power, and continue to conveniently uphold the previously introduced dystopian laws if it is useful.
India's constitution and legal system is a failure.
It has been tinkered with like very few other constitutions in existence. It was built on liberal ideas after they were butchered by socialists, utilitarians and positivists as I mentioned. It was built on weak and inconsistent principles.
Dravidianism survives and thrives thanks to the constitution and laws that have been imposed on Indians.
Good examples of this are the Directive State Principles and the first amendment and much more listed in the following note
There is no other political body of thought that effectively counters it by presenting a consistent basis for legal reforms except for the libertarian one.
Spiritually and culturally
Periyarism and Dravidianism are fundamentally materialist.
They dismiss Hindu traditions as superstition and elitism without ever taking the time to understand the nuances.
In the place of spiritual discovery, they elevate state-worship.
Libertarianism is about the separation of temple and state.
It ideas call for the removal of the government from religious affairs.
It is the only one that actually has a good argument for why temples must be freed and the HR&CE abolished.
It is the only one that can offer the legal argument for invalidating the waqf board, that is actually grounded in reason.
Libertarianism can protect Hinduism from political destructionism and bring it back to its spontaneous, organic, peaceful, spiritual and anarchic roots.
Dravidianism is a project of destruction. It rewrites history, mocks ritual, weaponizes caste, and divides society.
It treats culture as something to be engineered, regulated, and policed.
It tries to mold people to ideology rather than allow free individuals to shape culture themselves, which is how Hinduism can evolve to suit the modern world.
Culture is an emergent, spontaneous order. It evolves through the free choices of individuals, not by legal mandates. Government can only destroy culture and its institutions. It cannot protect it.
This is also why a Chinese-style system that promotes materialism in all walks of life is ill-suited for India.
Economic
This is where we move from the normative realm of talking about what should be to the descriptive realm of what actually is.
The term that we can assign to Dravidian economic policy, i.e. 'The Dravidian model' is 'Interventionism'.
It is the policy that the entire world follows, including China, India and America. Dravidianist policy is not different.
Liberal, conservative, communism with Chinese characteristics, Scandinavian socialism, Islamic monarchy.. doesn't matter.
It is an attempt at this unrealistic notion of 'a balance between capitalism and socialism'.
The system is characterised by a partial free market in enterprise with never-ending regulations, ever-expanding bureaucracy, fiat money, subsidies, freebies, welfare, centrally planned interest rates and fractional reserve banking.
Government spending usually drives nearly half the economic activity and comprises a major part of the so-called GDP.
If spending or debt is cut down, the economy will collapse as a result.
So they must inevitably take on more public debt, tax more, spend more and keep interest rates low.
It will lead to booms > malinvestment > overproduction > bubbles > busts > bailouts.
Government's role in the economy will keep expanding till we reach total socialism, where the state intervenes in all aspects of an individual's economic affairs.
Not to mention perpetual inflation. Prices will never go down no matter how much production increases. Everything will keep getting expensive. Tax burdens will increase. People will get richer in terms of numbers in their bank account whereas purchasing power of what they have will always go down.
Austrian economics, by contrast, reveals that wealth is created through savings, deferred consumption, sound money, private initiative, entrepreneurship and interest rates driven by the free market.
A policy of Laissez-faire is the real alternative to interventionism.
April 1, an apt day for the creation of one of the worst entities in the history of the subcontinent: the Reserve Bank of India 🤡
Those we praise as heroes and build statues for are the real villains in many ways.
It is their actions that keep the very people they sought to empower stuck in poverty and destitution to this day.
Ambedkar,
•Didn't understand sound money or time preference
•Didn't advocate for natural law or natural rights
•Called for a planned economy and interventionism
•Wrote a constitution that has been constantly abused to violate the rights of Indians
•Instrumental in creating a Indian central bank
Praise him all you want. But he was never a defender of Indians' freedoms. He did the opposite.
>Mises, the legend, argues against central banking and government control and manipulation of interest rates with irrefutable logic about a century ago. Gets ignored.
>Rothbard, a student of Mises, and others like him, kick off the libertarian movement in the US, with one of their goals being to end the federal reserve and the cartelisation of banking. Gets ignored.
>A medical doctor named Ron Paul reads Mises, Rothbard and other Austrian economists, joins the movement and decides to go on a crusade against the Federal Reserve.
>Millions are inspired by Paul, including among them many top-tier memers online.
>Libertarian ideas start infiltrating the American right wing, as strategised.
>Current vice president JD Vance openly says he understands where Paul is coming from and questions the Federal Reserve.
>Trump speaks at the Libertarian convention in 2024 before his election.
>Elon Musk, previously a sympathiser of Socialism, and now the richest man in the world, gets converted by memes and now openly says 'End the Fed' in political rallies.
Central Banks, a major tool that keeps socialism alive on life support, is the final boss in ending the long march of the world towards a socialist dystopia.
There is a lot of difference and similarities between an American holding up the US constitution in the name of freedom and an Indian doing the same with the Indian constitution.
The former is libertarian in spirit and was inspired by pure, natural rights based liberal ideas. It was the closest the world had to an enforceable libertarian document which has been massively corrupted over time. A typical constitutionalist in the US argues against this corruption, in vain. Americans aren't really free anymore.
The latter is socialist in spirit and was inspired by liberal ideas already corrupted and deformed by socialist thought. It has also been absolutely demolished further by amendments, many of them with tyrranical implications. The Indian constitution, even in its original form did not really guarantee Indians' freedoms. Indians have never been free in the proper sense.
So, holding up the red book as a symbolic gesture against government corruption and tyrrany is quite ironic.
Terrorism is caused by:
A) Religion
B) Evil people
C) Foreign governments setting up local military bases, destabilizing the region, taking control of the local currency, causing inflation, misery, displacement, death and destruction of property.
Which one?
Indian comedians holding up the constitution like it defends our right to free speech is hilarious.
The very first amendment to that document placed restrictions on speech *and* private property.
There are dozens of laws that restrict speech, expression and property ownership in India that could have been struck down by the courts, but wasn't, because the first amendment exists.
10 unpopular but useful things to keep in mind while listening to 'business', 'investment' or 'economics' podcasts and news:
1. Monopolies are sustained by tariffs, regulations, and taxes that limit competition.
Government barriers protect existing firms, preventing new and efficient entrants and disruptors.
2. Price controls distort incentives, leading to shortages or surpluses.
Artificial price caps discourage production, while floors create unsellable excess supply. This applies to wage controls also.
3. Civilization requires private property because it enables economic calculation and long-term planning.
Without private or 'homesteaded' ownership, individuals lack incentives to invest, innovate, or conserve resources. Public companies tend to be a drain on the exchequer.
4. Cartels tend to collapse in a free market due to competition and internal incentives to cheat.
Each member benefits from undercutting prices, making collusion unsustainable long-term.
5. Value is subjective; there is no such thing as intrinsic economic value.
It depends on individual and subjective preferences, not inherent properties, backing or production costs.
6. Artificially cheap credit and subsidies lead to malinvestment, overproduction, and inevitable recession.
Distorted signals like centrally planned interest rates misallocate resources, creating bubbles that must eventually burst.
7. Savings drive capital accumulation and productivity growth, not consumption.
Deferred consumption funds investment, enabling technological progress and higher future output. This cannot be artificially enforced without causing long-term destruction. Check point 6.
8. Money printing causes inflation. Law of diminishing marginal utility has not been refuted or disproved.
And the government will not stop printing money, ever.
9. Societies and economies cannot be planned, even with a quantum computer. Both are inherently bottom up in their functioning. Any attempt at it is an act of destruction.
10. Governments and their direct beneficiaries, (labour and business), will never accept any of the above because denying these benefit them.
•Logically refutes and debunks socialism and interventionism.
•People keep asking 'source?? proof??'
•Logically refutes and debunks the very notion of asking 'source?? proof??' in social sciences.
•Gets labelled a kook, ignored and accused of not understanding reality.
•Keeps getting proven right over and over again, by reality.
Ludwig von Mises.
He is HIM.
I think the future is bright orange.
I want to find, socialise and connect with genuine people.
Get more religious maybe.
Try to Become more close to my family.
Hopefully become more healthy, fit and have a better lifestyle.
Correct my eating and sleeping habits.
Avoid instant gratification activities and make things easier for my future self.
I think fiat and the state will die a slow death.
But I don't want to die a fast and miserable one just because they exist and I don't like them and those who support them.
Talking to strangers with no IRL mutuals who are close to me is a weird personal experiment I'd like to end for good. A few interactions have left a permanently bad impression. I don't think Nostr fixes this for me.
Would rather go back to sending reels back and forth with so-called 'normies' who can atleast be trusted to be predictable and normal.
It's not the masses who are broken.
It's the intellectuals. It's always them, with their broken methodologies and worldviews.
Here's a list of some of the laws passed since 'independence' by the Indian government that curtailed individual liberty in India and a short description of how they do so.
Each of these laws increased state aggression over economic, social, and personal freedoms.
1. Constitutional Amendments & Laws Curtailing Freedom
First Amendment Act, 1951
Effect: Limited free speech by introducing "reasonable restrictions" under Article 19(2). Allowed curbs on property rights by enabling laws to place restrictions on land ownership.
Why it curtails freedom: It weakened property rights and free speech protections, setting a precedent for future government overreach.
Fourth Amendment Act, 1955
Effect: Further restricted property rights by allowing compulsory acquisition of property without adequate compensation.
Why it curtails freedom: Strengthened state intervention in property rights, undermining economic freedom.
Seventeenth Amendment Act, 1964
Effect: Expanded the Ninth Schedule to shield land reform laws from judicial review.
Why it curtails freedom: Allowed laws that violated property rights and contract freedoms to remain beyond legal challenge.
Forty-Second Amendment Act, 1976
Effect: Added the words "socialist" and "secular" to the Preamble, made Directive Principles of State Policy (Part IV) more enforceable, and curtailed judicial review.
Why it curtails freedom: Imposed a collectivist vision on India, subordinating individual rights to state control in policy-making.
Forty-Fourth Amendment Act, 1978
Effect: Removed the right to property as a fundamental right, reducing it to a legal right under Article 300A.
Why it curtails freedom: Allowed government to seize private property with minimal legal recourse.
2. Laws Expanding Bureaucratic Control
Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 (as amended post-1947)
Effect: Granted the RBI extensive monetary control, including monopoly over currency issuance.
Why it curtails freedom: Prevents free banking and competition in money issuance, forcing reliance on fiat currency.
The Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR&CE) Acts (various state laws post-1950s)
Effect: Gave the state control over Hindu temples, while similar controls were not imposed on other religious institutions.
Why it curtails freedom: Violates property rights and religious freedom by restricting Hindus' management of their temples.
Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951
Effect: Required private industries to obtain licenses for establishment, expansion, and production.
Why it curtails freedom: Created the "License Raj," stifling entrepreneurship and economic competition.
Agricultural Produce Market Committee (APMC) Acts (various state laws, 1950s-1970s)
Effect: Mandated farmers to sell produce only in government-regulated mandis.
Why it curtails freedom: Eliminated free market competition in agriculture, reducing farmers' bargaining power.
State Bank of India Act, 1955
Effect: Nationalized the Imperial Bank of India and converted it into SBI, a state-owned entity.
Why it curtails freedom: Expanded state control over banking, reducing private sector participation in finance.
Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Acts, 1969 and 1980
Effect: Nationalized 14 major private banks (1969) and later 6 more (1980).
Why it curtails freedom: Destroyed financial competition, leading to inefficiency and government misallocation of credit.
Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956
Effect: Gave the government control over stock exchanges and their functioning.
Why it curtails freedom: Restricted the free operation of financial markets.
Essential Commodities Act, 1955
Effect: Allowed the government to control production, supply, and distribution of essential goods.
Why it curtails freedom: Led to shortages and black markets due to artificial price controls.
Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976
Effect: Limited private ownership of urban land.
Why it curtails freedom: Prevented efficient land use, contributing to real estate shortages and high housing costs.
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (amended in 1984)
Effect: Gave the state broad powers to acquire private land for "public purpose."
Why it curtails freedom: Allowed forced land seizures with minimal compensation.
Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (FERA), 1973
Effect: Severely restricted foreign exchange transactions and capital movements.
Why it curtails freedom: Prevented Indians from freely holding and transacting in foreign currencies.
FERA still persists in a different from through the FEMA act.
Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA), 1999
Effect: Replaced FERA but retained restrictions on foreign exchange transactions, requiring RBI and government approval for various cross-border financial activities.
Why it curtails freedom: Continues to limit Indians' ability to freely hold and transact in foreign currencies, restricting financial sovereignty.
Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) Act, 2015
Effect: Criminalized undisclosed foreign assets and income with harsh penalties.
Why it curtails freedom: Targeted financial privacy and assumed guilt before proving wrongdoing, violating due process.
Arms Act, 1959 (Amended in 2019)
Effect: Reduced the number of legally permitted firearms per person from three to one, making gun ownership harder.
Why it curtails freedom: Undermines self-defense rights by making it nearly impossible for law-abiding citizens to own weapons.
Personal Freedom Restrictions
Arms Act, 1959
Effect: Introduced strict gun licensing requirements.
Why it curtails freedom: Made self-defense difficult for law-abiding citizens.
Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002 (Expanded in 2019 & 2022)
Effect: Empowers the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to seize assets, arrest individuals without formal charges, and conduct searches without warrants under the pretext of fighting financial crimes.
Why it curtails freedom: Enables state overreach by bypassing legal safeguards, reversing the burden of proof onto the accused, violating due process.
Telecommunications Act, 2023
Effect: Grants the government the power to intercept, monitor, and block telecommunications services on vague grounds like "national security" and "public emergency."
Why it curtails freedom: Effectively legalizes mass surveillance, restricts internet freedom, and enables arbitrary shutdowns of communication networks.
3. Taxation & Economic Control Laws
Finance Acts (Annual Budgets)
Income Tax Act, 1961
Effect: Introduced direct taxation with progressive rates.
Why it curtails freedom: Penalized wealth accumulation, reducing incentives for productivity.
Customs Act, 1962 & Central Excise Act, 1944 (Expanded post-1947)
Effect: Imposed heavy duties on imports and production.
Why it curtails freedom: Restricted free trade, increasing costs for consumers and businesses.
Gift Tax Act, 1958
Effect: Taxed personal gifts above a certain threshold.
Why it curtails freedom: Penalized voluntary wealth transfers.
Wealth Tax Act, 1957
Effect: Taxed individuals on their total wealth holdings.
Why it curtails freedom: Disincentivized long-term wealth accumulation.
The Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971
Effect: Criminalized acts like disrespecting the national flag or anthem.
Why it curtails freedom: Imposed restrictions on expression and political dissent.
Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act (FCRA), 1976
Effect: Restricted NGOs and individuals from receiving foreign donations without government approval.
Why it curtails freedom: Limited financial independence and voluntary funding for organizations.
Income Tax Informants Reward Scheme (Revised 2018)
Effect: Rewards individuals for reporting tax evasion, allowing the government to incentivize informants.
Why it curtails freedom: Creates an environment of state-sanctioned surveillance where individuals can be targeted based on allegations, leading to misuse and harassment.
Income Tax (Amendments Post-1991)
Effect: Expanded tax collection powers, including provisions allowing retrospective taxation and criminal penalties for minor compliance failures.
Why it curtails freedom: Increases government control over private wealth, creating uncertainty for businesses and individuals.
Socialists and statists have it so easy.
•Create a group identity or cultural history that spans as many people as possible.
•Create an out group who are the enemies.
•Make up a bunch of statistics by using useful idiots in the field of empirical economics, logical positivism and historicism.
•Find out shared problems that your target group thinks is important.
•Blame it on the out group as the cause for all their problems.
•Use rhetoric that appeals to emotions. (Anger and resentment are the most effective.)
•Set up media, education and entertainment pipelines for propaganda. News channels, movie and tv production houses, universities, school syllabus, online brands, podcasts, etc.
That's it. They now have an army of people who are morally and ethically bankrupt and will be okay with almost any political action as long as they think it benefits them somehow.
Libertarians on the other hand fight among themselves endlessly and make sure that their ideas are refined, irrefutable and logically consistent. They lose alliances because of in-fighting, slowing down the movement further.
They never stoop down to the level of populists even though the state is the best outgroup to be angry at and resentful of. And non-aggressing people are the most peaceful in-group to identify with.
They need to articulate and make people understand the logic of human action and the ethics of private property and self-ownership. They need to justify why victimless crimes cannot be legally prosecuted. They need to educate people about the seen and unseen effects of economic planning and intervention. They need people to be reasonable or get them to discover their reasoning faculty.
They are on the right side of history, but yet their ideas don't become as mainstream as they want it to be.
They have it tough.