15th August is celebrated as In-dependence day, in India. Before 1947, white racists “ruled” India. After 1947, brown casteists “rule” India. Game is same; players are different. I wish there was independence in “Independence day”. Basically speaking, Independence Day furnishes the “political class” countless opportunities to ruin my working day. Like clockwork, local politicians, mayors, city council members, et al. materialize at parades, picnics, and housing societies to give chest-thumping speeches about “Independence Day”. But, what does freedom really mean? Just as we should repudiate junk english in economics, I specially demand precision when it comes to the language of political posturing. In other words, I suggest you all to insist that politicians use defined terms. In essence, independence is the absence of state coercion. Nothing more, but certainly nothing less. This article could be polemic, seditious or defamatory in nature, but I don’t care how ultracrepidarianists (specially, nationalists) decode it, because this article doesn’t fit with their “civility box”. If India is really Independent in her sense, then this article must not face any censorship or “ban”. If Indians are really serious with their “Independence day” fest, then they must also welcome deviation & tranquil defiance “fearlessly”. In one of my previous article “Six reasons why I don’t want India to become a superpower“, I came to know via bhakts/devotees (nationalists) that I am a Pakistani agent because I simply (also, rationally) refuted all those euphemistic or sugar-coated mainstream syntaxes on India becoming a superpower. Anyways, bhakts and liberals (including statheists) are always “forgiven” because I can understand their socialbackground and I also share “solidarity” with their psychological symptoms/complexes like cognitive dissonance, god complex and stockholm syndrome. Dr. Ron Paul explains this coercive reality behind those invoking “freedom”, while advocating state action:
“Few Americans understand that all government action is inherently coercive. If nothing else, government action requires taxes. If taxes were freely paid, they wouldn’t be called taxes, they’d be called donations. If we intend to use the word freedom in an honest way, we should have the simple integrity to give it real meaning: Freedom is living without government coercion. So when a politician talks about freedom for this group or that, ask yourself whether he is advocating more government action or less.”
I can bet that those who are busily cherishing their “public holiday” on 15th August haven’t ever metaphysically questioned few salient concepts like voluntaryism and statism. If they do, then they wouldn’t be celebrating it “consciously”. If Independence day has to do with structural liberationism, then there isn’t any “real” independence. Then, in simple english, it is a nominal version. This version, in my view, asserts that Independence Day is simply an euphemistic event celebrated to commemorate one-sided history, “anarchistic” freedom fighters, political correctness and nevertheless the current master (the government). However, on the apolitical grounds, I feel that it would be methodologically interesting to discover the application of tools applied by “our” celebrators to quantify liberty in their political belief on Independence day. Taking my assertions a step further, Hans-Hermann Hoppe describes a free society as the absence of aggression against one’s body and property:
“A society is free, if every person is recognized as the exclusive owner of his own (scarce) physical body, if everyone is free to appropriate or “homestead” previously un-owned things as private property, if everyone is free to use his body and his homesteaded goods to produce whatever he wants to produce (without thereby damaging the physical integrity of other peoples’ property), and if everyone is free to contract with others regarding their respective properties in any way deemed mutually beneficial. Any interference with this constitutes an act of aggression, and a society is un-free to the extent of such aggressions.”
Rather than positing “ad hominem” argumentation against me, it would be obliging to also discover why their “ad nauseam” argumentation deserves a special compliment on this “national” occasion. Also,burden of proof is on “our” celebrators’ court to convince me about the status and caliber of liberty in In-dependent India. I can guarantee that all their self-claimed “constructive” conclusions would be embedded with irrational emotions and legal intimidation, because they have not faced ANY sweet music aftermath playing chess with their “elected” pigeon(s). In The Ethics of Liberty, Murray Rothbard similarly defined freedom as the “absence of invasion by another man of any man’s person or property”. This encapsulates the critical libertarian concept of negative liberty, in my view, as opposed to the view ofpositive liberty in the form of mastery over one’s person and surroundings generally favored by “our” celebrators. This definition of freedom is fundamental. It means free people should be able to use their minds, bodies, and talents to advance their well-being (whether material, intellectual, or spiritual) as they see fit. It does not mean they can demand freedom from material want, or scarcity, or illness, or unhappiness, or unpleasantness generally. It does not mean anyone owes them housing, medical care, food, or a “living wage.” It means, in sum, the freedom to be left alone. And this is precisely what the political class of all stripes cannot abide. Trust me.
Mobocracy is the “norm”, because democracy is inherently about ‘far the people, off the people and buy the people’. Moreover, people are least interested to apply “critical consciousness” in their busy/daily lives because it is illegal to brace heterodoxical thinking in “Independent” India. Many statists in India use their omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent entity called ‘the government’ as a measure to quantity and qualify ethics, and they are likely to confuse laws with morality. I believe, this is the biggest cognitive problem in In-dependent India because many are yet to emancipate from the chains of servitude. Nowhere, in this article, I am prescribing absolute idealism or partial realism. Reread, if you would like to.
Other central theses of this article ratiocinate that the idea of liberty is not in sync with the “reality” because so-called ideal thoughts are imposed by the system and as far as my ethics is concerned I firmly believe that so-called “good ideas” like government-ism, welfarism, etc. don’t require force. If at all “force” is justified and imposed collectively, then why not also justify rape? Then, tell me, why shouldn’t I unsubscribe from statism on “our” Independence day? From beef ban TO [temporary] porn ban; from banon “India’s daughter” film TO ban on “fifty shades of Grey” film, if I’m not wrong, the Indian political system has truly showed its’ fifty shades. To begin with, a woman wearing short skirts in Delhi cannot walk at midnight because she is “vulnerable” to rape or else she would be disciplined by the moral police (ginger groups) later; economic freedom is licensed; malinvestments are spurring; environment is polluted to display GDP numbers “positively”; catallaxy is threatened; RBI performs itsapoplithorismosphobia; same-sex marriage is unapproved; Deepika Padukone’s #MyChoice is “liked”, whilst Radhe Maa is “judged”; kissing in public is immoral, whilst Mumbai police raids privacy in hotel room for “public decency”; caste or else astrology determines the foundations of “traditional” marriages, whilst marital rape is legal; upholding democracy is acceptable, whereas debating naxalism is illegal, and, I receive a WhatsApp forward on the salience of celebrating Independence Day. Great!
If you’re endeavoring to think “freely”, then you’re not suffering from “jockey syndrome”. Before I explain “jockey syndrome”, let us first understand what exactly “jockey” means. Jockey is a person who rides in horse races, especially as a profession. It can also refer to my “colored” underpants which carries a gun. Urban dictionary DOT com defines that a jockey is a zombie in “Left 4 Dead 2” that looks like Gollum on steroids with big ass-hands. He jumps on you and steers you unceremoniously into a whole bad horde of zombies. Whereas, jockey syndrome is a weird concept that elaborates that black guys don’t ride in races anymore. According to the theory, black men partook in sports roles that white men didn’t want to take part in. But, when that activity became coveted, white men took over and black guys were excluded. Horse racing is the prime example. Thus, the jockey syndrome.
As per the theory of generalization, the master is “always” white because he transcends over mankind and decides the realm of grey market and black money. Then, the masters “acknowledges” a colored piece of cloth and forces all to salute it. Failing to do so invites double trouble. Well, my underpants are also colorful like national flags.
“Flags are bits of colored cloth that governments use first to shrink-wrap people’s minds & then as ceremonial shrouds to bury the dead.” – Arundhati Roy
If I were to act like my government, then there would be a “constitutional” law on killing other humans for my underpants because according to my reign “nationalism cannot be measles of mankind” at all and it would be ethical to die for the government’s foreign policy because as a politician I am “too big to fail“.
Last but not least, it seems to me that people have “really” exchanged their liberty for more security, because they have not done any referendum on hearing individuals’ consent. Figure out. Moreover, it is unfortunate to note that they have also forced “others” like me to obey with their expropriation conduct. How hypocritical “our” celebrators are, on Independence day?