Category Archives: Capitalism and Freedom

Is Capitalism Compatible With Hinduism?

Posted on by

Capitalism is about the individual. It recognizes the fact that a group is comprised of individuals who are anything but similar in nature. All policies must therefore be built by keeping individual rights in mind.

Since everyone of us is fundamentally different, capitalism allows us to act in accordance with our likes, dislikes, attitudes, beliefs, disbelief(s), tastes, and preferences. Bans or “fatwas” have no place in capitalism.

In this sense, capitalism is equivalent to freedom – freedom of an individual to pursue his own interest rather than conforming to the group as a whole. Please don’t get me wrong. Group is important, but only to the extent that it allows us to reach our desired end. Most companies, for example, are realizing the fact that individuals in a team only perform their best when they are provided autonomy and independence. The more control a superior wields on his subordinates, the less productivity he yields from them. Innovation only happens in a free, decentralized environment.

Does that mean we should be completely free, even free to harm others? A key principle of capitalism is accountability. No freedom is possible without it. We all are accountable for our actions. Freedom cannot be protected if criminals are allowed to roam free. They must be incarcerated and brought to justice.

Also, please note that capitalism ≠ crony capitalism. Crony capitalism (also referred to as corporatism) is the evil nexus between government and big businesses. Capitalism, on the other hand, ensures healthy competition. It makes sure even small businesses are given equal opportunities to compete through tax breaks, privatization, few regulations, enforcement of property rights, economic freedom, etc. so big businesses don’t thrive on political favors.

capitalism hinduism

Hinduism, too, is about the individual. Like capitalism, it recognizes the fact that each of us is in a different phase of life and spiritual development and hence cannot be confined to a prescribed set of “commandments” which must be applied collectively. This individual freedom to pursue our own path depending on our personal suitability is one reason why we presently have so many sects, each interpreting Vedas according to their founder’s personal experience of Vedic knowledge. In other words, individual freedom has allowed Hinduism to become a bubbling cauldron of world-class philosophical ideas.

Vedas are the central books of wisdom in Hinduism. All existing sects today owe their basis to these books. And yet, they contain general principles (not strict rules or even history) for living a noble life. Most importantly, Vedas grant us the freedom to accept or reject their claims. Each of us is free to experiment. Free to question. Free to dissent in a dignified way. One one hand, we have had several theistic saints while on the other hand, we have also had the Hindu atheist Charvaka and also Buddha, the man who severely questioned (in a dignified manner) established contemporary interpretations of Vedic knowledge. It is this freedom that has allowed Hinduism to retain its robustness. And it is this freedom that we must protect.

Anyone who has even remotely studied Hinduism knows that we do not have a strict hierarchical system as found in most Abrahamic religions. Hinduism is antithetical to authority. It is antithetical to centralization. It acknowledges the fact that each individual soul is a repository of knowledge and power. And hence, all power in the hands of a few select individuals is to be abhorred.

Hinduism is based on merit. Through acquiring right knowledge and realisation, we must become rishis ourselves. We need not blindly follow anyone. As Vivekananda said, “You must not merely learn what the Rishis taught. Those Rishis are gone, and their opinions are also gone with them. You must be Rishis yourselves.”

In summary, elements such as individual liberty, decentralization, merit-based system and so forth are fundamental to Hindu philosophy which makes it perfectly compatible with capitalism. Socialism, on the other hand, is sacrilege. It represses individual potential and creates an unending cycle of poverty now seen in India and hence totally opposed to Hindu philosophy.

For further reading on this topic, pl. read this excellent collection of posts by Sanjeev Sabhlok: http://sabhlokcity.com/tag/hindu-capitalism/

Why higher taxes are detrimental to our economy (Part 2)

Posted on by

There are innumerable reasons as to why imposing higher taxes on the rich is both disastrous and counter-productive. Earlier, I compiled a list of some arguments against taxes here.

Today, I came across another informational piece in Business Today. Wish to share it with you as well as record some of the excellent arguments provided in it for future reference.

As the article notes, “There is not one instance in history where taxing the super-rich has worked as part of the solution to an economic crisis. The evidence, on the contrary, shows that it has only compounded the problem.”

France example

“The new French President, Francois Hollande’s main election plank was to levy a 75 per cent tax on the super-rich. This has resulted in a mini-exodus from France to Belgium and even, of all places, to Russia.”

Germany example

“In a war-ravaged economy, Ludwig Erhard, who shaped the German economic revival after World War II, had the courage to adopt a regime of lower taxes and very few controls. Erhard famously said he would let the money and Man loose and they would make Germany great. England did otherwise and suffered the consequences. Instead of following the Erhard route which has worked, we insist on repeatedly following the path of increasing taxes.”

India example

“The practice of taxing the rich has been tried in India with disastrous consequences . At their zenith, income tax rates soared to 97.75 per cent and this achieved the unintended twin objectives of massive tax evasion with serious erosion of our national character. Large scale cash transactions became the rule, fueling a huge black market economy.”

Further, the article notes, “The theory of bringing in equality and equity to society by taxing the super-rich is similar to Marxist ideology. It sounds delightful on paper but is utterly unworkable in practice. Marxist practices have ruined the Soviet, Chinese and North Korean economies with the attendant slaughter of 60 million of their own people.”

Some more reasons against higher taxes (from the article):

  1. Lower taxes = Higher revenues: “Another lesson of history is that rates of taxation are inversely proportional to the total collection of taxes. Lower rates of taxes have always resulted in higher revenues and greater compliance with tax laws.”
  2. “Taxing the super-rich primarily involves increasing the rates of personal income tax or property taxes. It ignores what actually happens with the incomes of the super-rich. Higher expenditure on goods and services results in more revenue being generated through indirect taxes. And if the taxes are low, there is no incentive to conceal either income or the acquisition of goods and services. Beyond a point, most income is then invested with financial institutions which, in turn, helps fuel industrial and economic growth.”
  3. “[Indirect taxes such as GST] has led to the practice of not reporting sales and purchases of goods and services. The introduction of GST will result in a huge boom in the black market economy.”
  4. “If a man cannot become rich honestly, he will do so dishonestly. Alternatively, if he has a sense of values and ethics, he has no option but to escape to other countries. The migration of a large number of India’s brightest engineers and doctors was in no small measure due to our socialist principles and heavy taxes.”
  5. Another article in Business Today read, “A higher rate of tax on high income group taxpayers is uncalled for as this would discourage entrepreneurship. It could lead to professionals relocating to low tax domiciles such as Singapore,” FICCI President Naina Lal Kidwai said.
  6. On the issue, CII President Adi Godrej said: “We have said any increase in taxes (on rich) will create a negative perception on investment and therefore should be avoided.”

Tax Burden

Republic Day and B.R. Ambedkar

Posted on by

On Republic Day, it may serve us well to remember B.R. Ambedkar for his crucial role in drafting our Constitution. He was a capitalist, a free-market economist. Believed in minimum government.

He got his MA and PhD degrees in Economics from Columbia University and also received a DSc degree in Economics from the London School of Economics. It is owing to intellectuals like him that we enjoy our current form of democracy and freedom.

B.R. Ambedkar

B.R. Ambedkar

Following are some of his ideas on economics, politics, and hero-worship (which we Indians seem to have become too comfortable with):

Ambedkar Against Civil Disobedience, Non-Cooperation, and Satyagraha

“If we wish to maintain democracy not merely in form, but also in fact, what must we do? The first thing in my judgement we must do is to hold fast to constitutional methods of achieving our social and economic objectives. It means we must abandon the bloody methods of revolution. It means that we must abandon the method of civil disobedience, non-cooperation and satyagraha. When there was no way left for constitutional methods for achieving economic and social objectives, there was a great deal of justification for unconstitutional methods. But where constitutional methods are open, there can be no justification for these unconstitutional methods. [Harsh: would Ambedkar have opposed Anna's methods?] These methods are nothing but the Grammar of Anarchy and the sooner they are abandoned, the better for us.”

Ambedkar Against Hero-worship

“The second thing we must do is to observe the caution which John Stuart Mill has given to all who are interested in the maintenance of democracy, namely, not “to lay their liberties at the feet of even a great man, or to trust him with power which enable him to subvert their institutions”. There is nothing wrong in being grateful to great men who have rendered life-long services to the country. But there are limits to gratefulness. As has been well said by the Irish Patriot Daniel O’Connel, no man can be grateful at the cost of his honour, no woman can be grateful at the cost of her chastity and no nation can be grateful at the cost of its liberty. This caution is far more necessary in the case of India than in the case of any other country. For in India, Bhakti or what may be called the path of devotion or hero-worship, plays a part in its politics unequalled in magnitude by the part it plays in the politics of any other country in the world. Bhakti in religion may be a road to the salvation of the soul. But in politics, Bhakti or hero-worship is a sure road to degradation and to eventual dictatorship.”

Ambedkar Against Centralisation

“By centralisation all progress tends to be retarded, all initiative liable to be checked and the sense of responsibility of Local Authorities greatly impaired…centralisation conflicts with what may be regarded as a cardinal principle of good government.

“Thus, centralisation, unless greatly circumscribed, must lead to inefficiency. This was sure to occur even in homogeneous states, and above all in a country like India where there are to be found more diversities of race, language, religion, customs and economic conditions.

“In such circumstances there must come a point at which the higher authority must be less competent than the lower, because it cannot by any possibility posses the requisite knowledge of all local conditions. It was therefore obvious that a Central Government for the whole of India could not be said to posses knowledge and experience of all various conditions prevailing in the different Provinces under it. It therefore, necessarily becomes an authority less competent to deal with matters of provincial administration than the Provisional Governments, the members of which could not be said to be markedly inferior, and must generally be equal in ability to those of the Central Government, while necessarily superior as a body in point of knowledge.”

 Ambedkar Warns Us of “Great” Men

“I admit that we ought to be more cautious in our worship of great men. For in this country we have perhaps arrived at such a stage when alongside the notice boards saying ” beware of pickpockets ” we need to have notice boards saying “beware of great men”.”

Why higher taxes are detrimental to our economy (Part 1)

Posted on by

I agree with Times’ view against imposing higher taxes on the rich. Higher taxes will discourage healthy risk-taking, savings, and investment. They will shrink our economy.

Even worse, raising taxes will provide tax collectors and officials greater incentives to carry out corruption through red-tape. It will not only discourage start-ups (what incentive do I have to pursue entrepreneurship if most of my income goes away in taxes to the government that does no good to its people?) but also reduce employment that otherwise could have been increased by the rich through further expanding their businesses.

Below are some of the main arguments presented by TOI. I’m reproducing the original story in a point-wise format for easy reading. You can read the article in its entirety (in essay format) here:

” .. reducing tax rates and expanding the tax base has reaped rich dividends in recent times. Though peak income tax rates have been sharply reduced from 56% in the early 1990s to 30.9% in recent years, income tax collections have gone up from Rs 5,371 crore (1990-91) to Rs 1,66,679 crore (2011-12). More importantly, the share of income tax in total tax collections of the central government has doubled from around 9% to about 18% now.”

Lower income tax rates are preferred for many reasons:

  1. The most important is that they encourage people to take greater risks and earn more.
  2. It also helps them to retain a larger part of their income and thereby boosts savings and investments.
  3. Higher investments, especially private investment that is usually more productive than that of the government, lead to faster growth.
  4. And faster growth, in turn, will bring in higher tax revenues.

High tax rates, on the other hand:

  1. Encourage tax evasion
  2. Often lead to a flight of capital abroad (Harsh: people move their investments abroad).
  3. The super-rich have abundant opportunities to park fund abroad in low tax economies, or to otherwise structure their finances to escape taxes.
  4. Moreover, high tax rates lead to corruption in the tax collection agencies.
  5. Even if one assumes honest tax collection officers abound within the system, the cost of tracking highly mobile funds and enforcing compliance could go higher than revenues raised.

One shouldn’t blindly emulate American or French examples — history and circumstances are different in India.

Who is responsible for the incompetency of Indian businesses?

Posted on by

There is a recurrent misconception, perhaps stemming from a lack of awareness and knowledge of the ground reality, that the blame for incompetency of our private sector lies solely with our businesses. Our companies are just not potent enough to stand on their own feet and compete on the world stage. Indians are not equally innovative and brilliant so as to be able to make hi-tech phones and tablets. Blah, blah, blah!

Nothing can be further from truth. I’m thoroughly convinced that we are no less competent or intelligent than any other race in the world. If India can have Tata and Infosys, it can also have the equivalents of Apple and Samsung. Of this, I have no qualms.

The real blame for the incompetency of our businesses lies with our governance system — the very system of socialism which shackles the potential of our entrepreneurs through unrelenting bureaucracy and red-tape. For example, according to the ‘Doing Business’ report, India ranks 182 among a list of 184 countries in terms of dealing with construction permits. To get this permit, one is required to undergo 34 procedures. It takes about 196 days! Mind you, this is only construction permit. The figure below mentions India’s ranking in terms of some other variables such as getting electricity, registering property and enforcing contracts. In almost all of these, India ranks above 100 and has only gotten worse in 2013 compared to 2012.

Doing Business report

The entire report can be found at Doing Business’s website here.  All of these problems can be eliminated by a well-incentivized system of governance, one which encourages our businesses through lower taxes, fewer licenses, better enforcement of laws, and less bureaucracy. As Gandhi remarked, “That government is best which governs the least.” We must believe in minimal government while simultaneously trusting the power of our entrepreneurs to increase employment, destroy poverty and to make India prosper.

Also, we must remember that most companies don’t want to bribe. They are forced to bribe. This is a harsh reality. For instance, Ratan Tata wanted to venture into the aviation sector in the 1990s. He could not enter because a government official in charge of issuing licenses demanded a bribe of Rs. 15 crore. Being an honest man, Ratan refused to bribe. As a result, he had to stay out of the industry. Here’s an excerpt from the article in The Hindu:

Was the story that someone had asked him to pay Rs 15 crore bribe to clear the Tata-SIA deal correct, the Tata chairman was asked during an interview.

He replied that the story was correct but it was not the then Civil Aviation Minister who had asked him directly to pay.

It was a businessman who “told me why don’t you pay. This is what the minister wants,” he said.

“I told him that you don’t understand. That is not how we do business. All he said to me was, ‘look if you want the airline, this is what you must pay. You know the minister wants that Rs.15 crore.’”

It’s unfortunate that India’s private sector remains shackled even after more than 60 years of independence. The key to our progress and prosperity, to becoming a ‘Sone ki Chidiya’ once again is to throw open these chains and unleash the repressed potential of our businesses.

Should People Be Allowed to Own Guns?

Posted on by

I have long thought about the issue of gun control. It’s an important national concern, particularly given the controversial nature of this issue and its potential to either save thousands of lives or destroy them. Please note that this is not a pure black and white argument because there are cogent arguments both for and against the motion. Instead of taking positions from fits of emotional outbursts and sentimentalism, we must think rationally, debate, and then decide.

So, having read widely and thought critically on this issue, I have formed some initial views. I’m increasingly beginning to think gun control is unnecessary. I’m, however, open to both sides of the argument.

For the motion:

(1) Ashish Deodhar, a FB friend, made a fairly strong argument when he wrote:

As heartbreaking as the Newtown shooting was, one must think rationally when it comes to debating gun control laws – in the US or anywhere else in the world.

We could say that India has some of the tightest gun control laws in the world. And yet, patients were shot dead in a hospital in Gurgaon; a toll collector was shot dead in Delhi for simply doing his job; the story of the Delhi bartender Jessica who was shot dead for refusing to serve a drink after hours is known to us all…

What would have prevented these crimes? An armed hospital or an unarmed hospital? An armed bar or an unarmed bar? An armed toll gate or an unarmed toll gate?

Those who want to kill people will get their arms anyhow. I wonder if tighter gun controls would only prevent law-abiding citizens who want to protect themselves!

The last point is particularly interesting. Most criminals get their arms from black market despite bans. They want to kill, and they will find guns anyhow. So why snatch away arms from innocents who can protect themselves.

(2) Those who want to kill will kill even with knives. They don’t need guns to kill. For example, just recently “a man with a knife slashed 22 children and one adult outside an elementary school in Henan province . . .” In light of this incident, shouldn’t knives be banned too?

(3) Guns are a good defence against  the State. The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution supports a well-regulated militia — citizens armed with guns — in the rare case that the State (meaning the govt.) becomes the people’s enemy.  In words of Sanjeev Sabhlok, “what would happen if ALL governments SHUT THEIR EYES to global deception and decided to impose their will by force?”

(4) Gun ownership has the potential to significantly reduce crimes. For instance, yesterday a girl in South Delhi, although accompanied by a male friend, was gang-raped by a group of five men in a moving bus. The group first attacked the boy with rods, following which they raped the girl and threw her out. Could the girl and her male friend have protected themselves if they had a gun with them? I think so! In the very least, the five men would have thought twice before committing such a heinous crime.

Also, we would be able to protect ourselves in the event of a robbery or theft in our houses. We are well aware that we live in a nation where Dominos arrives faster than an ambulance or the police. Imagine if all of us owned guns and knew how to shoot. The robber wouldn’t dare barge into our premises.

This was evident in an incident where a 12-year old girl shot an intruder to protect herself.  When the intruder entered her house, the girl hid herself with a gun inside the closet. When she had gathered enough courage, she jumped out and killed him.

(5) This argument may be far-fetched, but I think a well-regulated militia could also significantly reduce our defence budget – or instead of reducing, would at least allow funds to be used in other defence areas. More research in this matter would certainly help.

(6) What about the recent Connecticut shooting of 22 school children? Such incidents are extremely heinous and unfortunate. What’s worse is the killer was a 20-year old who stole his mom’s guns (which she purchased LEGALLY) to murder the children. That said, please note that Connecticut law only allows gun ownership to people above the age of 21. So, the killer used a gun which was already illegal. Banning guns or legalising them hardly matters to criminals because by definition, a criminal is he who does not follow the laws. The Connecticut shooting demonstrates how the government had failed in its attempt to prevent illegal ownership of guns. Who knows, if even one teacher had a gun handy, she could have saved more children or prevented further violence!

Against the motion (please provide your views if you fall in this category):

(1) Yes, there is a possibility of accidental shooting. However, we must gauge the probability of such an accident.

(2) Is it more likely to misuse a gun than a knife? In point (2), I mentioned that a Chinese man slashed 22 children recently using only a knife. Most robberies in countries with tighter gun control laws happen at knife-point. Is knife less lethal than gun in committing crimes? If so, how? We must answer this question.

Whatever the case, we must carefully weigh the costs versus the benefits of gun ownership. I agree that a thorough cost-benefit analysis is perhaps difficult owing to the lack of sufficient research in this area. Plus, doing research is hard. How can we do research on a decision that involves human lives?

gun

Four Reasons Why Indian Railways Should be Privatised

Posted on by

Those among us who have studied even BASIC economics know why monopolies, in any sector, aren’t beneficial for the various stakeholders involved (customers, bureaucrats, nation’s poor, and national economy). Monopolies are the “antithesis” of competition. They often maintain high prices and have no incentive to innovate or to provide efficient services.

In the case of Indian Railways, perhaps the high prices argument doesn’t apply. That’s because it artificially tries to maintain low fares in the name of serving the poor. Who cares if, in the process, it incurs huge losses (ultimately borne by us taxpayers)! Who cares if maintaining low fares translates into third-class services i.e. lousy IRCTC website, unclean stations, ramshackle train wagons, sluggish booking processes, the list goes on.

Oh, and did I mention chronic corruption? It’s no secret that corruption is endemic in almost all nationalised sectors of the Indian economy. Don’t get me wrong! I know corruption is also found in the private sector. But what differentiates the private sector from a public (i.e. govt.) sector is that in the former the corrupt actually get punished, while in the latter the corrupt get promoted. Or to put in another way, “When a private business fails, it’s closed down. When a govt. business fails, it is expanded.”

The benefits of privatisation are endless. To get straight to the point, let me enumerate a few advantages of privatising Indian Railways:

(1) Not surprisingly, railways are one of the the cheapest and fastest means of transport. Currently, Indian Railways is lacking TONS of wagons to support the demand of freight transportation. We must remember that the economy of a country rests on the growth of its businesses, which increase employment and thus indirectly reduce poverty. Given the lack of enough wagons, businesses that want to transport their goods from one place to another have only two options (1) wait for months or (2) choose the more expensive and slower option of road (truck) transportation. Thus, this inability of railways to meet the growing demand of freights translates into lower productivity of our businesses.

(2) The cycle goes on: Lower business productivity in turn causes lower output –> lower profit –> lower wages –> lower employment –> and thus more poverty. You can now see how Indian Railways is also one of the many reasons that explain why Indian businesses are not able to compete on a world-level.

(3) When businesses choose road transportation (instead of railways), they cause oil imports to rise. This adds to the rising deficit of our economy.

(4) We have already seen privatisation in airways, barring Air India of course. It works amazingly! Airline ‘fares’ are one of the MOST competitive. In fact, ask any informed businessman and he’ll advise you to stay out of venturing into an airline business — there’s so much cost-cutting and price wars in this industry that most airlines literally struggle to maintain profits. And while Kingfisher stands on the brink of bankruptcy, Air India keeps on expanding despite the fact that BOTH are failing businesses.

So, if airlines can be privatised, why not railways! I bet that privatisation will drastically improve the condition of our stations, wagons, and services — and not to mention fares as well. Competition inevitably leads to low prices, innovation, efficiency, and world-class customer service. This is the basic premise of economics. We only have to make sure that privatisation is complete, meaning it is not solely and favourably given to only a few select companies — like it was done in the 2G auction. Else, we shall soon see cronyism (the evil nexus between govt. and top businesses) in this sector too.

Why loan taxpayers’ money to businesses that are destined to fail?

Posted on by

Nationalisation has ruined India! In the name of running businesses such as textiles, airlines, power, television, etc. the govt. has robbed India of its potential to reach the superpower status. That is why I advocate STRICTLY LIMITING the powers of the government (all governments – not just Congress). In brief, it should not run ANY business except defending the liberties and lives of its citizens. This includes, at the most, defence, law, and order. Let the government only do this, and nothing more. For if it tries to venture out into entrepreneurship, it is BOUND to fail.

Almost every state-run business (Air India, Doordarshan, SBI, etc.) is running into losses which, in turn, have to be borne by the taxpayers i.e. you and me. The government simply has no incentive to maintain profit, for it does not use its own money. It uses our money. And who doesn’t like enjoy at others’ money especially when you know you are not going to be held accountable?

I recently read an article which explained how the state-run banks such as SBI (State Bank of India), Central Bank of India, and UCO bank had loaned millions of rupees to fund the ongoing operations of govt-run businesses (all of them running into losses) such as power and textiles.

The majority of such loans are from sectors such as iron and steel, infrastructure, textiles, telecom and construction. Now, loans given to fertilizer and non-banking financial companies are also turning bad and being referred to the CDR platform. [Harsh: note that most of these are govt.-run businesses]

The bulk of the restructured assets is on the books of state-run banks, often prodded by the Union government—the majority shareholder—to roll out sector-wide loan recast programmes and rescue ailing industries such as power and textiles.

State-run State Bank of India (SBI), the country’s largest lender, has restructured loans worth aboutRs.33,000 crore, out of which Rs.7,000 crore have turned into NPAs.

Privatisation of all banks is the answer

What’s more, these loans are increasingly turning into bad loans, meaning the debtors are not in a position to pay it back. So these state-run banks are “restructuring” the loans, meaning they are stretching the repayment period by offering a moratorium (i.e. debtors can legally delay their loan payment), reduce interest rates on loans, and many other concessions.

One question that arises in this context is why, in the first place, did SBI loan out funds to loss-making public-sector enterprises? Did it not carry out due-diligence before loaning out? Why waste taxpayers’ money in loaning out to businesses that are destined to fail?

All this is a deeper cycle. We must not allow the government to run ANY business in the first place. privatise all banks, textiles, steel and fertiliser companies, albeit gradually. Not at an instant. Only then can India see some light of emerging out from the mess it is presently mired in.

P.S. If you wish to help change India through REAL reforms, please consider joining Freedom Team of India at www.freedomteam.in – we are currently looking for 1500 leaders to lead India towards prosperity.

The government DID NOT create the Internet. Xerox did!

Posted on by

One argument often posed in support of a big government is that Internet wouldn’t have been created had it not been for the research capabilities of government-sponsored entities such as Pentagon. Nothing can be further from the truth. Internet wasn’t created by (or because of) the government. It was created IN SPITE OF the government — by the famous PRIVATE company Xerox.

It is a shame to learn that even presidential candidates like Obama support this urban legend. He wants to increase the power of the government and undermine the efforts of REAL innovators of America i.e. private businesses. All the more reason why Americans shouldn’t vote for him! 

Anyway, I read an article which appeared in WSJ recently and wanted to share with you. Although I recommend reading the entire article here, I present some excerpts below for a quick scan:

1) If the government didn’t invent the Internet, who did? Vinton Cerf developed the TCP/IP protocol, the Internet’s backbone, and Tim Berners-Lee gets credit for hyperlinks.

2) But full credit goes to the company where Mr. Taylor worked after leaving ARPA: Xerox. It was at the Xerox PARC labs in Silicon Valley in the 1970s that the Ethernet was developed to link different computer networks. Researchers there also developed the first personal computer (the Xerox Alto) and the graphical user interface that still drives computer usage today.

3) According to a book about Xerox PARC, “Dealers of Lightning” (by Michael Hiltzik), its top researchers realized they couldn’t wait for the government to connect different networks, so would have to do it themselves. “We have a more immediate problem than they do,” Robert Metcalfe told his colleague John Shoch in 1973. “We have more networks than they do.” Mr. Shoch later recalled that ARPA staffers “were working under government funding and university contracts. They had contract administrators . . . and all that slow, lugubrious behavior to contend with.”

4) Blogger Brian Carnell wrote in 1999: “The Internet, in fact, reaffirms the basic free market critique of large government. Here for 30 years the government had an immensely useful protocol for transferring information, TCP/IP, but it languished. . . . In less than a decade, private concerns have taken that protocol and created one of the most important technological revolutions of the millennia.”

I suggest you read point #3 again: “its [Xerox's] top researchers realized they couldn’t wait for the government to connect different networks, so would have to do it themselves.” This makes it abundantly clear: The govt.’s process in connecting the networks was sluggish and shoddy, which prompted Xerox to invent the Internet themselves. Explains why we must limit the power of the government. It does nothing worthwhile ever.

The Dark Knight Rises and the Beauty of Capitalism

Posted on by

The Dark Knight Rises is exceptional. We must thank not only Nolan for directing the movie beautifully, but also the POLITICAL system that helped create the director himself in the first place. Confused? Let me explain.

We know well that both China and India are far from achieving even a fraction of the level of sophistication employed by Hollywood. And at least part of the reason for this failure is the underlying system of governance — the failure of socialism. In contrast, The Dark Knight Rises stands as a defense to the success of capitalism and freedom.

Although it may not be easily apparent, it is owing to the existence of CAPITALISM that movie directors like Nolan are able to put their creativity into action. In capitalism, their efforts are not sapped by a bureaucratic government eager to crush all individual endeavors made towards creating world-class products.

For those unaware of what ‘capitalism’ means, it is a beautiful political and economic system where every individual pursues his self-interest and, in so doing, also ends up benefitting the society. How so? Adam Smith, the father of modern economics, gave a simple example: Take, for instance, a bakery owner. He makes loafs of bread so he can sell them and earn income to fulfill his needs and luxuries. He doesn’t do so out of his love for mankind, does he? In pursuing his self-interest, he ends up fulfilling the needs of bread-consumers i.e. you and me. Thus, this voluntary transaction benefits both the bread-producer as well as the consumer.

This, in simple terms, is capitalism. It does not condemn self-interest because it acknowledges human nature as it is. In fact, it uses basic human nature to benefit entire humankind.

Chris Nolan too worked primarily out of his own interest, his selfishness. Do you think he created TDKR out of his pure kindness for the audience? Do you think he would still have created this movie for millions of fans if there was a 90% income tax in place? Absolutely not. He created it so he could earn in millions and perhaps also acquire fame.

The beauty of capitalism is that Nolan’s self-interest not only enabled him to get what he worked and aspired for (wealth and fame), but also served the audience i.e. us through providing entertainment. We, the “consumers,” savored every scene of this movie despite the ticket price being relatively expensive.

The Dark Knight Rises was possible because government STAYED OUT of Nolan’s business. Because state officials did not interfere into his private affairs and his pursuit of creating a stupendous trilogy. Because the process of getting required licenses and paperwork done was not hindered by the debilitating effects of bureaucracy which is rife in all government departments.

It is for this reason that I vehemently oppose government interference in private matters and vigorously support the slogan, “That government is the best which governs the least.” Remove the far-reaching hands of the government from almost all public affairs and what you get is high-quality products, whether it be movies, books, iPad, education, roads, railways, postal system — the list is endless.