The daily noose reported that Sachin Tendulkar, Rekha and Anu Aga have been "co-opted" into Parliament - the first a star batsman, wielder of the willow; the second, a Bollywood actress of a bygone era; and the third, the "dowager" of an engineering firm who had been co-opted long ago anyway, being on the "advisory council" of Sonia Gandhi, herself a dowager. This firm has some interest in "environmental legislation" - so do read Murray Rothbard's brief "Libertarian Manifesto on Pollution."
But with Tendulkar, a "sporting hero," it seems obvious to me that Parliament is seeking "legitimacy" - and we must not allow that.
Let us, therefore, look at certain "acts" of this Parliament - for "actions speak louder than words." But words are also very powerful: "The Pen is mightier than the sword."
First: On the 50th anniversary of Parliament, they passed a "unanimous resolution" saying that we, the people, our children, our grandchildren, and even our great grandchildren are India's "Biggest Problem" - while they, our so-called "representatives," are The Solution.
They believe their constituents are The Problem.
This is:
"Parliament - Against the People."
Even today, Raman Singh, BJP Chief Minister of Chattisgarh, is forcibly sterilising his citizens.
Actually, it is his very own "maladministration" that is The Problem.
In the same vein, as I have argued for decades, and as Julian Simon has done before me, it is our The State that is the real problem, while our people are "the ultimate resource."
Second: It is this Parliament that is "Bholay ka Dushman" - they passed the Act that criminalises Cannbliss and empowers the cops.
Of course, there is a "Hindutva Party" in this Parliament - and Advani was a Home Minister, while Atal lives in retirement in Manali, eating apples, I think. Manali charas is 65,000 rupees a kilo or more abroad. This is criminal. Punishments are draconian. The apples are 50 a kilo.
They say "Jai Shri Ram" - and they are all Bholay ke Dushman.
Their real - and completely evil - motive is to cause and then politically exploit inter-religious strife.
Third: This Parliament passed the Representation of People Act which only allows "socialist" parties in the fray. Not that the BJP or the Shiv Sena are socialist. But "classical liberal" parties are debarred from contesting. SV Raju and his Indian Liberal Group have their PIL against this Act pending before the Bombay High Court for over 15 years. Raju and his fellows are all leftovers from the Swatantra Party of old: the "free market and free enterprise" party of Rajaji, Masani, Gayatri Devi, Piloo Modi, etc. They were the largest opposition party Indira Gandhi's CONgress faced during the Emergency years - hence this Act, which "amended" the previous Act. She also had the Constitution amended accordingly, adding the word "socialist" to the Preamble.
Margaret Thatcher told me, in London (October 2002): "You boys must set up a party - and campaign."
I replied: "Even if we invited you to lead our party, it would be illegal."
"This is TYRANNY!" - she cried out.
It is!
So, since this Socialist-Malthusian-Communal Bholay ke Dushman Parliament and their monopoly courts do not recognise the legitimacy of political convictions like mine, why should people-like-me look upon this Parliament as "legitimate"?
Given these circumstances, what is the best way out?
Dylan shows how:
Gonna change my way of thinking,
Gonna make myself a different set of rules.
So - a "private law society": Property, Contracts, and Torts.
IGNORE ALL THE ACTS OF PARLIAMENT THAT INTERFERE WITH YOUR LIFE.
Do not violate Property.
Do not violate Contracts.
And Torts work both ways, of course.
What this ought to accomplish - I hope - is PEACEFUL CHANGE.
Similarly, do not accept their paper money - and switch to private money.
Let the private law of Contract govern money and banking.
Nirad C Chaudhuri's Autobiography of an Unknown Indian contains the following perception of Justice in British India before the nationalist agitation began - as a response to that idiot Curzon:
Remember - the Empress was some 10,000 miles away. It was "an empire of laws and not men."
That is the direction I am pointing towards - but within "private law."
I conclude with some lines from the Old Testament on why kings and sovereign monarchs are such a bad idea. This is what Samuel told the people of Israel when they asked him for a king:
So, be warned. Kings are Old Hat. Mayors are okay - and the historical example to emulate was discussed only yesterday.
Some may not know what the "Guy Fucks'" in the title means - so, for them, let me briefly explain. Guy Fawkes was a fellow who bombed - or attempted to - the English Parliament. Till today, every 5th of November is CELEBRATED in England as Guy Fawkes' Day. The picture accompanying this post is of the Guy Fawkes mask that revelers wear on this happy day.
Actually, the Anglo-Saxons never had parliaments. The word came to their shores with the Normans - who spoke French. Parliament means "speaking place" - where people parlez. As in "parlour."
In France, every ancient town has its own parlement - what the Anglo-Saxons call "town hall."
So, let us rebuild our shattered civilisation at the level of the polis - the town - with mayors.
And Town Halls.
Of course, there is a "Hindutva Party" in this Parliament - and Advani was a Home Minister, while Atal lives in retirement in Manali, eating apples, I think. Manali charas is 65,000 rupees a kilo or more abroad. This is criminal. Punishments are draconian. The apples are 50 a kilo.
They say "Jai Shri Ram" - and they are all Bholay ke Dushman.
Their real - and completely evil - motive is to cause and then politically exploit inter-religious strife.
Third: This Parliament passed the Representation of People Act which only allows "socialist" parties in the fray. Not that the BJP or the Shiv Sena are socialist. But "classical liberal" parties are debarred from contesting. SV Raju and his Indian Liberal Group have their PIL against this Act pending before the Bombay High Court for over 15 years. Raju and his fellows are all leftovers from the Swatantra Party of old: the "free market and free enterprise" party of Rajaji, Masani, Gayatri Devi, Piloo Modi, etc. They were the largest opposition party Indira Gandhi's CONgress faced during the Emergency years - hence this Act, which "amended" the previous Act. She also had the Constitution amended accordingly, adding the word "socialist" to the Preamble.
Margaret Thatcher told me, in London (October 2002): "You boys must set up a party - and campaign."
I replied: "Even if we invited you to lead our party, it would be illegal."
"This is TYRANNY!" - she cried out.
It is!
So, since this Socialist-Malthusian-Communal Bholay ke Dushman Parliament and their monopoly courts do not recognise the legitimacy of political convictions like mine, why should people-like-me look upon this Parliament as "legitimate"?
Given these circumstances, what is the best way out?
Dylan shows how:
Gonna change my way of thinking,
Gonna make myself a different set of rules.
So - a "private law society": Property, Contracts, and Torts.
IGNORE ALL THE ACTS OF PARLIAMENT THAT INTERFERE WITH YOUR LIFE.
DISOBEY LEGISLATION - but follow The Law.
Do not violate Property.
Do not violate Contracts.
And Torts work both ways, of course.
What this ought to accomplish - I hope - is PEACEFUL CHANGE.
Similarly, do not accept their paper money - and switch to private money.
Let the private law of Contract govern money and banking.
Nirad C Chaudhuri's Autobiography of an Unknown Indian contains the following perception of Justice in British India before the nationalist agitation began - as a response to that idiot Curzon:
Overhead there appeared to, coinciding with the sky, an immutable sphere of justice and order, brooding sleeplessly over what was happening below. But that feeling vanished at one stroke with the coming of the nationalist agitation in 1905.
Remember - the Empress was some 10,000 miles away. It was "an empire of laws and not men."
That is the direction I am pointing towards - but within "private law."
I conclude with some lines from the Old Testament on why kings and sovereign monarchs are such a bad idea. This is what Samuel told the people of Israel when they asked him for a king:
This is what the king who will reign over you will do. He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow the ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make his weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. He will take your daughters to be his perfumers and cooks and bakers. He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves...
So, be warned. Kings are Old Hat. Mayors are okay - and the historical example to emulate was discussed only yesterday.
Some may not know what the "Guy Fucks'" in the title means - so, for them, let me briefly explain. Guy Fawkes was a fellow who bombed - or attempted to - the English Parliament. Till today, every 5th of November is CELEBRATED in England as Guy Fawkes' Day. The picture accompanying this post is of the Guy Fawkes mask that revelers wear on this happy day.
Actually, the Anglo-Saxons never had parliaments. The word came to their shores with the Normans - who spoke French. Parliament means "speaking place" - where people parlez. As in "parlour."
In France, every ancient town has its own parlement - what the Anglo-Saxons call "town hall."
So, let us rebuild our shattered civilisation at the level of the polis - the town - with mayors.
And Town Halls.
