Dharmic socialists and other useful idiots: The Sad Decline of Andhra Portal
Andhra Portal used to be a very interested and unconventional resource about Andhra history in particular and Indian history in general. You can be classify them as Hindutvadis in the political spectrum. I myself do not identify myself as such even if I subscribe to certain sections of their ideology but in general I find it too provincial, frankly ignorant and constricting.
But that in itself did not bother me as they had made many interesting ,insightful and often cutting observations that I could certainly agree with. Alas those days are long past. Just as William Buckley once said "A foundation that doesn't declare itself to be explicitly conservative will invariably drift leftist" .Hence a portal which doesn't embrace unconventional thinking as its forte invariably devolves in Hindutva talking points.
In this particular case- socialist economics with a dharmic sheen.
This is where I come in. I had a fallout with the author of the article and I ended up getting the Vadakayil treatment( ie banned) because I allowed myself to take his bait and indulge in a mud slinging contest. That is something I hold myself responsible for , no question.
However I do indulge in abuse pretty much only when my adversary is being dishonest and deceitful. Both the adjectives apply to the author of the following piece. I normally don't wish to pester my readers with my squabbles elsewhere unless they are relevant to the topics I discuss in the blog(which is why I deleted my fisking of a certain Iraqi woman who was quite deranged) but Dharma and economics do interest me a great deal so off we go. My comments are apart from the para and in italics.
Selfishness: The Real Root of All Evil
It is often said that money is the root of all evil.
Stop right there. In the Bible it states that the LOVE OF MONEY is the root of all evil rather than this popular but inaccurate rendition. As you can see there is a great difference between the two
We are already off to an auspicious start. So I guess its down hill from here!
Some even point to lust as its origin. But the reality is that it is Selfishness: svaartha, that privileging of one’s own inclinations, interests, and desires above others, that is the true root of evil.
Not quite. Evil has a way of emanating from all sorts of sources be it lust ,pride, envy ,gluttony. That is what makes it so persistent and powerful in human affairs.
We’ve all seen the characters or come across such behavior. The stubborn fellow who has to have his way, others be damned.
Sometimes stubbornness is good. Abolitionists and civil rights campaigners were "stubborn fellows" in their time when being reasonable meant tolerating slavery and segregation.
The spendthrift wife who runs up her husband’s debt. The brutish husband that neglects his wife’s needs. The bulldozing billionaire fat cat who disregards the welfare of the community.
You are getting warmer to your theme. Anyway disregarding the welfare ie indifference is very different from demolishing or upending it. I am not responsible for the slum dwellers in my vicinity and therefore am not immoral in being uncaring about their predicament. However if I set their houses on fire then I deserve whatever retribution legal or otherwise is forthcoming.
The ambitious politician who destroys his own society.
An ambitious politician Lincoln destroyed a portion of his society to end the practice of slavery. To be sure he was not saintly as his modern day canonizers imagine him to be but was quite the wheeler and dealer but that doesn't mean he was selfish as you understand it.
All these examples are ingredients in the destruction of civilization. All represent unrestrained selfishness, Nihit Svaartha.
Actually many of these saved civilization in their midst. And in many ways Adolf Hitler was a very unselfish man. Sure he was a prima donna and a glory hound but he sincerely believed whatever he did for the greater glory of Germany and the Aryan Nation.
In our era of instant gratification, competition, and survival-of-the-fittest, many of our sophists and pseudo-philosophers may decry this deconstruction of selfishness as an attack on the “liberty of the individual” and an”obstruction of the talented“. The even more infantile may cry “John Galt!” like so many infants in a nursery.
Here we go with Ayn Rand bashing..
But the reality is such personages neither have a concept of liberty nor know what it truly means to be a member of society. Such self-absorbed troglodytes are all too happy to feed at the trough of publicly provided positive externalities (from schooling to roads to national defense),
Whoa wait a minute. Who ever said that libertarians were opposed to paying ANY taxes whatsoever? Even the most hardcore of anti tax crusaders will admit that infrastructure and defense are what government is supposed to do and taxes should be collected for the same. How much taxes and what level of defense expenditure is justified is a separate issue. Most American libertarians are dead set against expensive military procurement and defense budgets not to mention wars that needlessly waste blood and treasure but incur questionable levels of security to the tax payers.
Oh but the construction of strawmen has just started
when it suits them, but balk at having to give back to their communities, help the needy, or even look after their extended families.
If my community helped in raising me, I will help them if they need. I do help the needy,financially or otherwise. As for extended families, more often than not they are just parasites.
But all these points are moot as the author wants your taxes to do charity on your behalf whether you like it or not
Indeed, what they are really asking for is not the liberty to be unoppressed, but the freedom to exploit and to harm as they will. In short, what they are in fact demanding is license and licentiousness.
Sorry no, most of us just wish to be left alone. We do observe that our liberty ends where it ends up impinging on another's basic rights.
(Unneccesary illustration but whatever)
All human beings experience various desires and temptations. Men tend to be more prone to lust, and women to money (though we increasingly see the reverse these days),
I get the impression that you have neither money nor women.
but both experience temptation in the process. Nevertheless, it is the recognition of the rights of others and their mutual claim to Respect, that causes the person of conscience to curtail and ultimately master his or her desires.
Sorry our scriptures recognize our yearning and encourage us to attain kama(pleasure, sexual and otherwise) and artha(material wealth) in a reasonable manner. And Kautilya was no prude about kama which is why he regulated prostitution. But more on this later
( I hate quote memes taken out of context, don't you?)
Destructive natures are brought about when individuals begin privileging their own needs and interests above the rest of society. Indeed, Duryodhana is the classic example of this. For all his sins, he had a number of good qualities as well (such as generosity to his friends), but even these qualities were all ultimately subject to his Nihit Svaartha. It is this inability to put society above self that leads to destruction.
Wait a minute. You say he was generous to his friends (especially Karna) and then you call him selfish. A tad contradictory what? Your knowledge of the Epics is seriously askew. Duryodhana had childhood grudges against the Pandavas due to plain old shooting cousins (as opposed to kissing cousins) which is as old as the hills and as time went on one event build on another until it went kaboom.
(By posting a youtube video of a snippet of Mahabharat you have convinced me of your dharmic ways)
However, one need not turn to the Mahabharata to see selfishness on display. This ghor kaliyug is itself the manifestation of selfishness, so much so that pseudo-philosophers have verily turned it into a virtue…
Here we go..To set the record straight: I am NOT a fan of Ayn Rand. I find her to be a bit coarse in her hyper individualism and her the (often unneccesary) bulk of novels would make Leo Tolstoy look like a short story writer in comparision. But it doesn't mean that a lot of what she says isn't without merit. She chose such scandalous and incendiary titles in a time where the "selflessness" of socialism was killing and had killed tens of millions of people.
Some may be wondering, “Why this upadesh?”, “We all can’t be saints”, “One must be selfish to survive!“. But what they fail to realize is that selfishness not only affects those around them, but affects even politics and the destinies of nations. It is selfishness that drives an individual to privilege his ambition over the needs of the common good.
Very few say they have to be selfish to survive unless it is a really cut throat environment and you have no other options. If you cannot take care of your own basic needs, material or otherwise, then forget about helping others.
(Goddamnit another stupid meme)
Once again WTF? Why exactly should I care about my neighbor. I certainly shouldn't go out of my way to harm him. I have to duty to be pleasant and maintain my house and yard so that the property values don't drop and he suffers in the process. But what is this "neglecting" nonsense? Why cant he take care of himself? And if he cant how come he is living in a nice house next to me?
Some of our half-educated half-reads may declare “Vell, Adam Smith said invisible hand vill guide us—let each man pursue his self-interest! Fight for your right!”. But these morons have neither read Smith nor understand his philosophy.
Neither have you as it will become apparent.
First off, he didn’t speak of naked self-interest, but ENLIGHTENED self-interest. This means that an individual should weigh his interests in line with the common good. An example of this is the telecom debacle, where wealthy businessmen were advocating on behalf of foreign equipment manufacturers because…it was profitable. Even government officials were toeing this line. They cared nothing for the national security ramifications of giving possible future adversaries access to government lines of communication. So where then is this alleged “virtue of selfishness”?
Of course. There are certainly lines to be drawn in the case of national security. Of course merchants are often corrupt and those focus only on the bottom line. Adam Smith addresses this as does Milton Friedman.
Delivering shoddy products and services with wicked intent is not something a good free marketer would not do as the market would correct itself and harm his interests in the long term.
Second, even before he wrote the Wealth of Nations, Smith composed the Theory of Moral Sentiments. Many of our videsh-returned wunderkinds believe they’ve unlocked the secret to wealth creation in Italian suits, Milton Friedman, and iPhones.
You can practically taste the bitterness of envy and resentment. This sounds like a man who never had an Italian suit or iPhone and has to resort to making nations subscribe to economic policies so that even fewer will. That is socialism in a nutshell.
Indeed, a number of them have even opened up revenue generating retirement homes and grossly profitable gated communities to replicate their MBA model in India. But let’s take a look again at what the patron saint of Capitalism himself wrote in his earlier work:
I don't like retirement homes as a principle but if there is a demand for it its not the worst thing in the world. Its better than re education camps which socialists prefer I suppose
I don't see the issue with gated communities. More envy.
You can practically taste the bitterness of envy and resentment. This sounds like a man who never had an Italian suit or iPhone and has to resort to making nations subscribe to economic policies so that even fewer will. That is socialism in a nutshell.
Indeed, a number of them have even opened up revenue generating retirement homes and grossly profitable gated communities to replicate their MBA model in India. But let’s take a look again at what the patron saint of Capitalism himself wrote in his earlier work:
I don't like retirement homes as a principle but if there is a demand for it its not the worst thing in the world. Its better than re education camps which socialists prefer I suppose
I don't see the issue with gated communities. More envy.
“The laws of all civilized nations oblige parents to maintain their children, and children to maintain their parents, and impose upon men many other duties of beneficence”—Adam Smith TMS, p.81
And our Bhagvad Gita instructs us to slaughter our elders if they get too clingy with their inheritance!
Thus, even the philosophical poster boy for profit has advocated the importance of duty and beneficence (i.e. generosity, unselfish action), to one’s parents, children, and fellow man.
If he is the "poster boy for profit" why are you quoting him? Its like me quoting Hitler!
As such, calculation of one’s interest cannot be in a vacuum. Self-interest must be weighed with societal interest. Even when the cause is just, one must ask whether correction is advocated in the correct way. The current documentary controversy is perfectly illustrative of this selfishness.
If he is the "poster boy for profit" why are you quoting him? Its like me quoting Hitler!
As such, calculation of one’s interest cannot be in a vacuum. Self-interest must be weighed with societal interest. Even when the cause is just, one must ask whether correction is advocated in the correct way. The current documentary controversy is perfectly illustrative of this selfishness.
Many of our half-educated shrilly cry that the documentary should not be banned. FOE is being infringed as is their right to watch (leave aside traditional speech law on defamation, obscenity, and time/place/manner restrictions). What’s more, some of our youth feel this is precisely what is needed to shake up chauvinism and rowdy-ism they’ve experienced in their lives. And that is precisely the problem: this perspective only looks at the issue from the immediate view, rather than the societal one. It refuses to take into account data showing lower rates of violence, higher rates of conviction, and under-reporting even higher in other countries. The immediate self-centered emotion of avenging personal injustice is privileged above national interest, even if their Fathers, Brothers, Husbands, and Sons are unfairly tarred and stereotyped, and culture, illogically labeled.
Now, to be sure, violence against women is indeed a problem, as is staring/leering. And others will declare that fighting crime against women is societal interest too (it most definitely is). But is the way to combat this by playing into the hands of the nation’s adversaries? One need not be some paranoid theorist to say that there are parties interested in smearing India’s culture.
All this stuff is completely irrelevant.
All this stuff is completely irrelevant.
For those wondering precisely how invaders were finally able to establish kingdoms in India during the medieval period, they need only see the laundry list of alleged nationalists speaking out in support of this documentary. Like the Sindhi Kshatriyas angry at the rule of the Brahmin Raja Dahir, they gave their support to foreigners they stupidly thought would be fighting their just cause for them. Because you see, these videshis must really be acting out of a sense of “justice”…cause they really care!…so darn much! It is this gullible stridency in both men and women that makes it next to impossible to get anything constructive done. But then again, unrepentant stupidity has been almost an uniquely Indian quality for the past few centuries.
Sorry wrong wrong wrong. Back then there was no Sindhi identity as we know it today so there were no Sindhi Kshatriyas. And in Raja Dhahir times, he was ruling mostly Jats who were yeoman warriors so they weren't considered Kshatriyas strictly speaking.
Raja Dhahir himself was a usurper and extremely unpopular with the masses. He practically gave the Arabs a cassus belli as many of the pirates which harassed Arab ships were based in the ports of Sindh(hence Sindbad the sailor).
Many actually saw Mohd Bin Qasim as a liberator.
But why go on and on about Sindh as if that was some sort of beachhead of Islamic conquest.Most of Sindh was recovered and subsequent Arab attempts failed. It was not until nearly 400 years later with Mohd Ghori did Islam penetrate the heartland.
Sorry wrong wrong wrong. Back then there was no Sindhi identity as we know it today so there were no Sindhi Kshatriyas. And in Raja Dhahir times, he was ruling mostly Jats who were yeoman warriors so they weren't considered Kshatriyas strictly speaking.
Raja Dhahir himself was a usurper and extremely unpopular with the masses. He practically gave the Arabs a cassus belli as many of the pirates which harassed Arab ships were based in the ports of Sindh(hence Sindbad the sailor).
Many actually saw Mohd Bin Qasim as a liberator.
But why go on and on about Sindh as if that was some sort of beachhead of Islamic conquest.Most of Sindh was recovered and subsequent Arab attempts failed. It was not until nearly 400 years later with Mohd Ghori did Islam penetrate the heartland.
The infuriating and sinful disrobing of Draupadi fueled not only the Pandavas’, but Krishna’s desire for the destruction of the Kauravas. However, even Krishna achieved justice for Draupadi after weighing all the factors: When, Where, How, Who, What, Why. He did not merely advocate war immediately. He took into account the factors against and even tapasya required on the part of the Pandavas, before, in the name of all women,
In the name of all women? Really , how did Draupadi's disgrace affect other women?There is no opinion from Kaurava women so we can only assume that they approved.
Duryodhana and Dushasana could be brought to justice. And brought to justice they were, in the most terrible of fashions. But this was achieved and societal attitudes corrected because even an humiliated and vengeful Draupadi patiently listened to the wisdom of Sri Krishna. Rather than putting her cause above Dharma, she focused on Dharma, which in due time, gave her the justice she so richly deserved.
Wouldn't it be much simpler if Bhima just went upto Dushasana and tore out his arms and drank his blood and presented to Draupadi ASAP instead of leading to war?
Sure it was not per protocol of Kshatriyas but wasn't it better than war where a lot more rules of Dharma were broken and not just on the Kaurava side?
That is because, no matter how just the cause, weighing and prioritizing of all interests (not just one) and correction of all crimes (not just one) is required.
In the name of all women? Really , how did Draupadi's disgrace affect other women?There is no opinion from Kaurava women so we can only assume that they approved.
Duryodhana and Dushasana could be brought to justice. And brought to justice they were, in the most terrible of fashions. But this was achieved and societal attitudes corrected because even an humiliated and vengeful Draupadi patiently listened to the wisdom of Sri Krishna. Rather than putting her cause above Dharma, she focused on Dharma, which in due time, gave her the justice she so richly deserved.
Wouldn't it be much simpler if Bhima just went upto Dushasana and tore out his arms and drank his blood and presented to Draupadi ASAP instead of leading to war?
Sure it was not per protocol of Kshatriyas but wasn't it better than war where a lot more rules of Dharma were broken and not just on the Kaurava side?
That is because, no matter how just the cause, weighing and prioritizing of all interests (not just one) and correction of all crimes (not just one) is required.
Indeed, it is the failure not of pursuing one’s interests, or frequently even societal interests, but the failure and stubborn refusal to prioritize interest properly that frequently leads to problems not only for societies but even for relationships.
(goddamnit another fucking meme)
Nothing kills a relationship as quickly and easily as does selfishness. As even tragically beaten wives and cruelly cuckholded husbands can attest, it is not ill-treatment but pure and raw selfishness that destroys relationships and makes one feel alone. Nothing numbs love like neglect.
If you only prioritize your interest. If you only care about yourself. If you only look after yourself, how can your relationship, any relationship, survive? Romance isn’t dead today because modernity makes it impossible or obsolete.
Actually romance is dead because feminism killed it. Next question?
Rather, the Death of Romance took place because individuals (the constituent parts of a relationship) are too selfish to make the relationship work. What self-absorbed, selfish woman (no matter how physically beautiful) will inspire the continued romantic sentiment in her husband? What selfish brute of a man can continue to retain the romantic affections of his wife? Indeed, it is not compatibility, but selfishness and brutishness, that makes a relationship impossible. Even the classic English drama Pygmalion demonstrates this.
Actually romance is dead because feminism killed it. Next question?
Rather, the Death of Romance took place because individuals (the constituent parts of a relationship) are too selfish to make the relationship work. What self-absorbed, selfish woman (no matter how physically beautiful) will inspire the continued romantic sentiment in her husband? What selfish brute of a man can continue to retain the romantic affections of his wife? Indeed, it is not compatibility, but selfishness and brutishness, that makes a relationship impossible. Even the classic English drama Pygmalion demonstrates this.
(You are beginning to get on my nerves)
If divorce rates are increasing, if violence against women is increasing, if isolation in society is increasing, it is because of selfishness and self-centeredness. A nation of narcissists and selfish brats will not long last. And a nation of people that know not how to prioritize, will not become strong.
If divorce rates are increasing, if violence against women is increasing, if isolation in society is increasing, it is because of selfishness and self-centeredness. A nation of narcissists and selfish brats will not long last. And a nation of people that know not how to prioritize, will not become strong.
As we have previously demonstrated, reliance on laws and never-ending legislation may punish criminals–but they won’t reform them or even prevent their creation to begin with. Indeed, a just society is the one that requires the fewest laws.
Yes but what you recommend- ie near punitive levels of taxation and intrusion in the private realm which require the greatest number of laws. So I suppose you want to increase laws in order to create a just society which will lead to fewer laws?
Since you tormented me with so many memes , indulge me while I provide you one of my own.
This is because its population self-regulates its own behavior. Men restrained by Dharma do not selfishlessly justify their basest and even violent urges, let alone enact them. Likewise for Women educated in dharma. Thus, a society’s civilization and justness is not determined by the number and complexity of its laws, but by the virtue and selflessness of its populace. This is because the selfish man sees only objects of pleasure/utility, and behaves only as much as law or threat of punishment permit him in a given place. In contrast, the selfless man behaves properly irrespective of law or punishment or place.
Sure I agree. But you are the one who jumps up and down about selfish men not paying their due to society and wish to impose taxes and other regulations on them. Ah but the problem is retributive and punitive laws(and socialist laws often are) invariably do not target individuals but drag other parties to the prison, bankruptcy or the hangman's noose as the situation merits.
Yes but what you recommend- ie near punitive levels of taxation and intrusion in the private realm which require the greatest number of laws. So I suppose you want to increase laws in order to create a just society which will lead to fewer laws?
Since you tormented me with so many memes , indulge me while I provide you one of my own.
This is because its population self-regulates its own behavior. Men restrained by Dharma do not selfishlessly justify their basest and even violent urges, let alone enact them. Likewise for Women educated in dharma. Thus, a society’s civilization and justness is not determined by the number and complexity of its laws, but by the virtue and selflessness of its populace. This is because the selfish man sees only objects of pleasure/utility, and behaves only as much as law or threat of punishment permit him in a given place. In contrast, the selfless man behaves properly irrespective of law or punishment or place.
Sure I agree. But you are the one who jumps up and down about selfish men not paying their due to society and wish to impose taxes and other regulations on them. Ah but the problem is retributive and punitive laws(and socialist laws often are) invariably do not target individuals but drag other parties to the prison, bankruptcy or the hangman's noose as the situation merits.
(for gods sakes enough with this)
The way to dignity, justice, and respect for women is not through outside intervention, but internal reform.
None of us pleaded for "outside intervention".
From Adi Sankara to Basava to Vivekananda, voices rooted in the native and indigenous were the ones that most successfully appealed to our conscience and reformed society in the process. They didn’t look to outsiders to play arbiter, benevolently guiding our destinies. They recognized that while Indians were selfish and stupid, the outsider was selfish…but smart. Rather than playing into the hands of those who wished harm, they advocated internal reform and took inspiration from our own philosophies to ensure justice to all members of society. Acara is the building block for this, because it restrains our behavior for common interest.
From human trafficking to acid attacks to forced intercourse to everyday run of the mill lechery, women are overwhelming the victims of indecency and violence. But no amount of legislation can completely prevent such behavior in all settings. Only good conduct, Acara, teaches men (and women) respect for others and self-restraint. Thus, the mistake of these ladies is not in speaking out, but knowing where to speak out and how to correct and willingness to listen. So why single out the present generation of young women–who, however misguided, are nevertheless justifiably upset at world-wide violence against women, when there are those without such provocation, who seek out their own agendas. Sadly, even in the ranks of those who presume to speak out in favor of or in support of dharma do so only so far as it advances their self-interests. Even our self-proclaimed patriots and social media saviors are guilty of this sin of selfishness, and have even less reason for it.
One of the most tragic things in any hour, but especially during a late hour, when all of society stands at a precipice, is when those who proclaim to support dharma or righteous causes, nevertheless act in a selfish and opportunist manner. Rather than think of the common good, they prioritize advancing their own personal, career, and caste interests. Rather than do the hard work of building something from scratch, they seek to bandwagon on established efforts or gain entry into fashionable salons or seek the top position, while insulting/destroying any who stand in their way. They consume rather than contribute.
Socialists are the epitome of parasitical consumers.
If stupidity is the inability to prioritize, selfishness in many ways is about a refusal to prioritize (society above self). That is the importance of dharma, not merely as a slogan or a convenient umbrella, but as a principle to be lived as part of a living culture. Thus, we once again come to culture as not only the glue for nations, but the nurturing soil that germinates virtuous sons and daughters, selfless leaders, and strong societies.
Socialists are the epitome of parasitical consumers.
If stupidity is the inability to prioritize, selfishness in many ways is about a refusal to prioritize (society above self). That is the importance of dharma, not merely as a slogan or a convenient umbrella, but as a principle to be lived as part of a living culture. Thus, we once again come to culture as not only the glue for nations, but the nurturing soil that germinates virtuous sons and daughters, selfless leaders, and strong societies.
We all experience a selfish urge, or make a mistake from time to time. The point is not to make those poor souls wear a scarlet S for all eternity, but to encourage them and encourage ourselves to hear out and think in the common societal interest, before self-interest. Therefore, all those looking for benevolent videshis to fight their cause for them would do well to read what happened to Sindh in 711 CE.
Again with the bloody Sindh invasion. Are you aware of any other historical events?
The Chachnama gives plenty of lessons in just not what to do, and just what the ultimate cost of selfishness is to individuals and societies. As we’ve said before, you can be stupid, you can be selfish, but you can’t be both. As Indians are unlikely to match the sheer, diabolical shadyantras of videshis, their hope lies in being not quite so selfish.
Americans are alarmed that Indian Americans earn like Episcopalians but vote like Puerto Ricans. ie take advantage of the favorable business climate in U.S to earn a comfortable living and then vote in politicians who in turn demonize the private sector and enterprise.
Indians are not winning any popularity contests with their penchant for Wall Street and the legal professions. Neither are they by any means under represented in the clique of the trouble makers and totalitarian minded "social justice" warriors and progressives.
Would you therefore accept expulsion of Indians as Americans are unable to withstand "the sheer, diabolical shadyantras" of desis?
The fate of the region, country, and civilization itself, depends upon it.
Again with the bloody Sindh invasion. Are you aware of any other historical events?
The Chachnama gives plenty of lessons in just not what to do, and just what the ultimate cost of selfishness is to individuals and societies. As we’ve said before, you can be stupid, you can be selfish, but you can’t be both. As Indians are unlikely to match the sheer, diabolical shadyantras of videshis, their hope lies in being not quite so selfish.
Americans are alarmed that Indian Americans earn like Episcopalians but vote like Puerto Ricans. ie take advantage of the favorable business climate in U.S to earn a comfortable living and then vote in politicians who in turn demonize the private sector and enterprise.
Indians are not winning any popularity contests with their penchant for Wall Street and the legal professions. Neither are they by any means under represented in the clique of the trouble makers and totalitarian minded "social justice" warriors and progressives.
Would you therefore accept expulsion of Indians as Americans are unable to withstand "the sheer, diabolical shadyantras" of desis?
The fate of the region, country, and civilization itself, depends upon it.
Let Nishkama Karma (selfess action) be your slogan as well as solace, for it will prove ultimately to be your savior.
(Damn the meme industry didn't even spare Vivekananda. Did he really say this. If so I disagree)
( Below are the comments, the admin banned me for profanity though the author was heading in that general direction himself. No matter. Their forum, their rules. But AFTER I was blocked some of more pointed and relevant comments deleted , this guy comes back to give me a "moo thod jawab" in his mind knowing full well I am unable to respond.
Well I may not be able to do that there but I can here.
Scroll to the end for the comments thread and context. Right below is the comment to which I couldn't respond which I am doing now. My answers will be in parantheses
(Whose house has collapsed on whom will soon be apparent, Mr. wicked witch of the West)
(Using words like dialectical will not make you sound any smarter)
Here’s what you said
above, dummy:
“Nor are you familiar with the economies of ancient India.
We had an almost free market approach which made us prosperous.”
( Indeed that is what I said)
“Kautilya was quite free market”
Here’s the section from the Arthashastra reprinted for your
edification here:
rthashastra
( I already acknowledged and addressed everything about the Arthashastra including his views on Prostitution and Merchants.
Who ran away like a coward when I pointed out that your hero Paul Krugman believed that alien invasion would stimulate the economy?
Who ran away from my queries as to your views on imports, trade tariffs, capital gains taxes, unions etc. You started rambling on about List and Beta options indices or what have you?
This reminds me of a time when I was tutoring a dull student who thought he was a genius because while he couldn't solve a quadratic equation , he was aware of an equation E=mc^2 , why he could recite by heart! I suppose by your standards that kid was a genius)
(From all the talk of sexually frustrated and cuckolded men in your article, it is safe to draw some conclusions about your love life and it is not pretty)
*You state a moronic claim about ancient India, and I
disprove you with Kautilya, and you still pretend otherwise.
(No you did not)
(Yup but that is still not capitalism or free trade. There is no "capturing" in free trade)
*You recognize you haven’t done the reading, but you
stupidly critique my understanding. You obviously didn’t understand Smith as
even he wrote of market regulation and market failure. You completely missed
Kautilya’s motivation for regulating prostitution–it wasn’t for free market
freedom of contract (do you even know what that means?) like your libertarian
loonies, but to protect minors and the unwilling from exploitation.
(It doesn't matter what Kautilya's motivation for regulating prostitution was. I remarked that Thomas Sowell was the way to go rather than cranks like Paul Krugman. And then you mocked Sowell for supporting drug legalization and prostitution. I then pointed out Kautilya himself favored regulation and legalization of prostitution. Now shift the goal posts by
1. Providing Kautilya with noble motivations for doing
2. Thereby assuming that libertarians do NOT have prostitutes(minors or unwilling) interests at heart
Strawmen upon strawmen...)
(You mentioned that he favored both decriminalization and prostitution. The jury is still out on decriminalization but keep in mind that heroin, meth and cocaine were available in pharmacies a hundred years ago. And there were no cartels or an epidemic of addictions)
( That the housing crisis was caused due to defaulters who couldn't keep up on payments is well known. And also that most of these were minorities either black or Hispanic. And banks built a house of cards by securitizing these mortgages. This is common knowledge to everyone except your self apparently. And believing this somehow makes me a Gunga Din. )Once again
*You’re too scared to answer my query about list, but you
foolishly gloat of imagined manhood like a castrated catamite.
(These types of semantics are just more dirty tricks by leftists of every stripe who think they can fool others by terming their ideology "pro wealth")
( Hey another question you didn't answer Mr. aadarshwaadi super patriot- why are you an NRI if you hate all those damn whiteys so much?)
( I think we have seen from your post riddled with insecurities, envy and resentments as to who is a never-will-be. Anyway I am curious if I am this selfish Ayn Rand,Friedman spouting arch capitalism who eats babies for breakfast and bathes in the tears of the elderly , shouldn't I have something to show for it with my Italian suits and iphones. Cmon man grant me that much will ya?)
(Ah pointing out typos. The first refuge of the desperate. As for Dinesh DSouza, he is a citizen of U.S, not India and that's where his loyalty lies. The end. I am an Indian citizen even as I live abroad. Say which passport do YOU carry?
I have also seen your type. Heavy breathing hyper patriot who sings glories of India from NYC,LA, Silicon Valley,Seattle but never seems to relinquish his American green card/passport and go back.)
(Ah banning and blocking, the last refuge of the sore loser)
Well I may not be able to do that there but I can here.
Scroll to the end for the comments thread and context. Right below is the comment to which I couldn't respond which I am doing now. My answers will be in parantheses
N.R.I.pathi says:
April 1, 2015 at 1:04
am
Truly hilarious. I never thought someone could be so
oblivious to his/her own discrediting by so obviously and repeatedly losing
his/her cool. Thank you for proving my point about how you’re a mental case who
doesn’t even know his/her entire house of straw has collapsed upon
himself/herself.
Since you liked our Origins of Stupidity post so much,
self-diagnose and stop being a sore loser–accept your dialectical defeat with
some dignity.
( Indeed that is what I said)
http://www.andhraportal.org/selfishness-the-real-root-of-all-evil/#comment-154
p.236 “Merchants…are all thieves, in effect, if not in name;
they shall be prevented from oppressing the people.” {4.1.65}
p.240 “Merchants for adding a profit margin higher than
those prescribed or for making undue profit–>Punishments: 200 panas”
{4.2.28,29}
Game over.
( Hahaha QED I suppose. Well deduced Columbo. Except I mentioned specifically that merchants can often be the worst examples of capitalism. Adam Smith himself said so)
The fact that you ran away like a coward from the sections
of the Arthashastra I cited only shows your intellectual bankruptcy (and
schoolyard level insults above)–and you think you have the capacity to have a
grown up conversation with me? Ha!
Twenty years of self-proclaimed online debate, yet a mental
age of two…what a tragedy. Why cast aspersions on someone’s spouse? Did yours
jilt you for “the profession”? It certainly would explain your loss of
emotional control and lack of self-awareness. I pity you…looks like servicing
all those Pakistanis all those years has clearly had an effect…
Anyhow, you’re welcome to continue hanging on for dear life
like a loutish loon, but it’s quite obvious you, like your beloved Ayn Rand and
Chicago school economics, have been debunked.
(Time for another meme if you will indulge me)
Why squeal about me not tackling even one of your puerile points, when here’s a litany of them:
(Time for another meme if you will indulge me)
Why squeal about me not tackling even one of your puerile points, when here’s a litany of them:
*You still don’t understand that colonial britain had
laissez faire policies in England, or understand how imperialism works (it
pushed free trade only after it developed industry under protectionism and had
captured the Indian market–That’s the List critique, you fool).
*Your reading comprehension is pathetic, since you clearly
didn’t process that I wrote that Sowell favored decriminalization of drugs,
which you conflate with prostitution above.
*You actually still think the 2008 crisis was caused by
lending to black Americans! Good God, man (or woman). How cognitively defective
are you? Keep fighting imaginary leftists everywhere, gunga din.
* You didn’t even know the difference between being
pro-wealth creation and pro-free market .
*And you’re so stubbornly stupid you actually wrote this:
“As for Adam Smith, even the devil can quote scripture. So what?”—What he wrote
is the point, dummy. It shows that selfishness can’t be the basis for our
economic system. Even Smith wrote self interest must be Enlightened. But morons
like you worship at the altar of Rand (and likely the devil) and make
selfishness a virtue.
( I meant that you are the devil. Actually I retract ,atleast the devil is supposed to possess a formidable intellect)
This is what happens when you jump in guns blazing like a
brainless wannabe without making an effort to ask and properly understand
someone else’s position. You’re so pathetic, you didn’t even have the
intellectual horsepower (donkeypower in your case?) to rebut me point by point
above. You just ranted like a school child and vomited profanity in a vain hope
to distract–exactly as I characterized you above. This is precisely what
happens when people lose their culture. No etiquette, no decency, no brains
( Hey another question you didn't answer Mr. aadarshwaadi super patriot- why are you an NRI if you hate all those damn whiteys so much?)
But what else could be expected from a logically arrested,
unctuous troglodyte who equates Ayn Rand with wisdom. It’s obvious your
uneducated ego couldn’t take my critique of the patron saint of selfishness,
that’s why you abandoned any pretence to civility in your first comment itself
and continued long after convincingly making a delusional fool of yourself. By
all means, keep declaring victory…it will make for a fine blooper reel.
(Yes keep using that Thesaurus. It may convince someone ,anyone that you have a few brain cells.)
Wannabes and never-will-be’s like you are a dime a dozen, so
cry me a river.Fortunately, we already studied the pathology of your kind.
Oh, and while I didn’t deign to discuss your prolific and
elementary spelling mistakes above, better luck with your TOEFL next time,
since the phrase is in fact “poorly constructed English” as it refers to not
only sentences, but paragraphs, and language usage in general. Awww….too
bad…maybe more fair and lovely next time, and you too can join the likes of
Dinesh D’Souza, and other assorted sepoys.
We favor an open
forum here, which is why despite your profanity, general lack of
culture/manners and obvious irredeemable ignorance, I avoided editing your
distasteful remarks until now. Thanks for providing the readership with an
example of blockable/bannable behavior. Goodbye troll.
(Ah banning and blocking, the last refuge of the sore loser)
What should be the capital gains tax
What is your position on “luxury” imports
What is your position of farmer subsidies, price controls?
In what ways should government regulate factory production
WHat is your position on unions
I don’t want such a scenario. Neither does a self proclaimed aadarshvaadi hyper heavy breathing patriot like you I assume but if we follow your views that is what we will get
But of course he wasn’t perfect as no one is and he belonged to another time when protectionism made sense in some limited context
And just so you know she believe racism to be the crassest form of collectivism.
Or for that matter what are you doing in a gora country?
Never mind. I already know the answer to this question.
Sonia Gandhi..hahahahaha
Have you considered a career in comedy. Regretably it is no longer Bahmani so bending over for foreigners is no longer an option. But Im sure something will open up under Owaisi’s reign….
Adam Smith himself said that the conquest of India by the East India company undergoing at the time was an utter perversion.