The "gay" folk (unlike morose ones like me) consider "marriage" as something they must have. As if it were a forbidden fruit.

I've made it clear that it is inappropriate for such folk to want to get "married". They can sign contracts and do other such things, but not marriage. But marriage is a term with long-determined meaning. The idea of changing the very meaning of a word to suit some people is undesirable.

The terms marriage, विवाह, nikah, etc., are not terms of convenience.

Like the precision attributable to the term liberty, these terms connote a precise meaning: in this case a valid union between man and woman with its many rights and obligations. It is just the way it is defined. For thousands of years, the precise nature of this institution has been worked out. It stands for certain things.

No offence meant to "gays" (and I have NOTHING against "gays" or the morose), but you can't really change definitions of words.

A rose must be called a rose, and a tiger, a tiger. And so on. Just because someone like Amartya Sen starts ascribing to liberty the exact opposite meaning of what it originally meant, doesn't make this new definition valid. In DOF I've tried to explain that liberty is purely – in modern jargon – negative liberty. Not positive liberty (of the sort that Amartya Sen wants). Original meanings matter.

The key message is: let's not tinker with words and meanings. That will confound everything. 

I understand that "gay" people want to be "regularised" by society.  Sure. That's perfectly OK. I've got NOTHING against any "gay" or non-gay person. As adults people can voluntarily trade/contract, subject to not harming any other person (that's crucial).

So if you are gay you are most welcome to prepare and sign a contract that "regularises" your relationship. I'm happy to be a witness. We can all celebrate.

All that is fine. That's part of the concept of liberty.

But the idea that this relationship should be called marriage is nonsense on stilts. Only an Obama could have thought of such a thing. 

Note also that this contractual relationship can't demand any right to adopt or produce technology-created children. Children DON'T enter the equation in this relationship. They are simply out of question.

To dispel any confusion on what I stand for, here's a simple table:

Feature	Marriage	Gay couple living together
Relationship that is either contractual or a sacrament (sanctified by religion in the eyes of God)	Some are contractual. Most are sacraments in the eyes of God. The state MAY recognise (its role is irrelevant; marriage being PERSONAL law). The implicit common law contract is fully contestable in court.	PURELY contractual, with property rights protected by the state.
Institution developed and guarded by thousands of years of tradition – in all religions and societies	Yes	No
Right (but not obligation) to bear children	Yes	No
Right to rear children	Yes	No

I'm unable to respond to the many comments I'm getting on this topic. Commentators are often asuming things I did not say nor imply. I have contested the role of the state in marriage. They don't seem to know that. They have not read my writings on marriage. I'd encourage them to read Online Notes to BFN.

Also, the commentators need to tone down some of their absurd claims, e.g. "And as long as marriage is recognized as a legal contract between 2 consenting adults". It is NOT.

Marriage is NOT any ordinary contract between any two consenting adults. 

Marriage is a PARTICULAR type of contract, and in most societies, a sacrament.

It has a spiritual basis in the minds of most people. Regardless of whether there is a God or not, people deserve their beliefs to be treated with some respect, so long as they are not harming anyone.

By trying to get "married" the gays are entirely upturning the meaning of marriage. That's an inappropriate ambition. Such ambition has NOTHING to do with liberty or the "regularisation" of the "rights" of "gays" to pursue happiness.

There are ways to be free (and happy) without disrupting the entire society, AND nature!

Above all let's respect the laws of biology and of nature. 

I am happy to elaborate my position on "gay" marriage further for the sake of those who suffer from the misconception that marriage is some kind of "human right".

LIBERTY is the "human right". LIFE is the "human right". [Why I place the phrase "human right" in quotes is explained at length in DOF; basically there are no rights till a constitution is agreed, along with enforcement of the rule of law. By no means are natural rights to life and liberty automatic "rights" .]

But the question before us is: Is marriage a natural right?

No.

A constitutional liberal democracy must enforce the rule of law, through application of laws equally to all citizens. That does not mean, however, that the law must be blind to basic BIOLOGICAL facts of life.

For instance, in public places there are generally TWO separate toilets: one for men and one for women. 

Why?

Because men and women are DIFFERENT in their biological constitution. It is not a violation of liberty for men to be prohibited from entering women's toilets in a public place (e.g. airport).

Similarly, children can ONLY be produced from a man and woman (regardless of any technological overlay, which STILL relies on the underlying DNA of ONE man and ONE woman).

The right to marriage is therefore RESTRICTED only to a man and woman who will not just live together but could have have BIOLOGICALLY CREATED (i.e. natural) children. 

One may well ask: Is it crucial that children necessarily be produced in order for a union to be called "marriage"?

No. Even if a marriage does not produce children, the fact that biologically it COULD have, is sufficient. 

The fact that someone must necessarily adopt children or have them technologically produced (as must ALWAYS be the case in "gay" marriage), is fundamentally a different idea to that of marriage. These are two distinct sets; MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE:

There are those who argue that "gays" can adopt and hence "care" for children. But just because one is fit to be a nanny doesn't mean he/she becomes a parent. The whole point of marriage was (and is) the natural upbringing of children.

In sum, there is no natural right to marriage. There is NO constitutional imperative or necessity for a society that guarantees liberty to also guarantee "gay" marriage.

There is, in addition, NO natural right to be able to "care" for children that are not one's own. Yes, in a real marriage adoption sometimes becomes necessary. But that still allows for the NATURAL upbringing of children. Such upbringing of an adopted child in a REAL marriage is NOT comparable in any form or shape to "upbringing" of an adopted child by a "gay" "couple" .

In sum, there is NO system or possibility in nature for "gay" parents. PERIOD.

"Gay" people can live together and have SEPARATELY defined legal rights, particularly contractual arrangements for property or such things.

But no, their relationship is not, and cannot be marriage.

Should they wish to care for children, they can help out in orphanages or otherwise assist as nannies or school teachers. I'm not undermining their possible contributions as humans. But they must not have any access to children for "bringing them up". That is a fundamental violation of the laws of nature.

The NATURAL rights to life and liberty derive from NATURE. The laws of life (biology) have priority over all other laws. Let us avoid making a mockery of fundamental institutions that are rooted in biology and the laws of nature.

I believe that ALL institutions that have evolved over thousands of years serve an important purpose in society.

Caste system

I have shown how the caste system was PIVOTAL to the success of India during the agricultural epoch. It ensured that basic necessary skills (e.g. blacksmithy) were ALWAYS available in each remote, decentralised village. That gave India a competitive edge over the entire world, making it unequivocally the RICHEST society (including in per capita terms) in the world for 12 out of the past 20 centuries.

The fact that India evolved the caste system is therefore, in my view, better attributable to the imperatives of economics than religion (although religion has a role in its continued persistence). Religious explanations merely couched the optimal economic equilibrium in language more suited to the lay man. 

Even today, as Gurcharan Das rightly points out, the major industrialisation drive in India is coming from the bania or capitalist "class", which is shifting gears from trade to industrial production. Caste is giving India an advantage even in the capitalist world. 

But this should be its last hurrah, its last contribution to India.

Capitalism CANNOT tolerate inequality of status. In this new epoch of industrial and information production, the caste system is NOT optimal any more. The economic logic of capitalism will, in my view, inevitably lead to the death of the caste system – If only India's governance is radically modernised.

Marriage

But the institution of marriage is not defunct and will NEVER become defunct. It serves and continues to serve a most basic purpose in society. It is the place where CHILDREN – the most important beings from the perspective of humanity and Nature – get to experience the dynamics of REAL life, thus being nurtured till they are able to stand tall and compete in this dynamic, challenging world.

The idea of having two "dads" or two "moms" for any child (who is not naturally produced from BOTH parents) is TOTALLY perverse and harmful at ALL levels. Children in such "families" will NEVER appreciate or imbibe the basic organic structure of society. Such children are put at a disadvantage from day one.

I do NOT support any idea that damages CHILDREN and confuses them from the moment they first come into this world.

How will a child suckle two dads? What UTTER nonsense is this!!!!

Why are we depriving CHILDREN of natural upbringing?

It is not my business nor am I interested in what two adults do with themselves. I don't really care whether they are gay or morose.

But I am FIRMLY against the idea of a "family" unit that destroys the foundational institutions of society – and SERIOUSLY damages children.

I oppose the caste system on many grounds, so clearly I'm not a conservative. I'm a (classical) liberal. But I oppose any attempt to destroy or dilute the MOST foundational institution of society: the family.

I firmly oppose the idea of two males/females being allowed to "marry" and thus "bear" children.

Obama THE FOOL is (once again) WRONG. I hope he is booted out by the Americans.

Obama is increasingly falling in my esteem.

I don't watch TV but did see a short part of his inauguration speech a few years ago, in which he seemed to be a genuinely nice man.

But apart from his policy mishaps – just just too many of them; and his deep hatred for freedom, I've now also realised that he represents what a leader should NOT do.

Here's what leaders say:

Dwight Eisenhower

Dwight Eisenhower is famous for having penned a statement to be issued in anticipation of the failure of the Normandy invasion that reads in relevant part: "My decision to attack at this time and place was based upon the best information available. The troops, the air and the Navy did all that bravery and devotion to duty could do. If any blame attaches to the attempt it is mine alone."

A week later, when the success of the invasion was apparent, Eisenhower saluted the Allied Expeditionary Forces: "One week ago this morning there was established through your coordinated efforts our first foothold in northwestern Europe. High as was my preinvasion confidence in your courage, skill and effectiveness . . . your accomplishments . . . have exceeded my brightest hopes.

Eisenhower did mention himself at the end: "I truly congratulate you upon a brilliantly successful beginning. . . . Liberty loving people everywhere would today like to join me in saying to you, 'I am proud of you.'"

George Bush

George W. Bush, also had occasion during his presidency to announce to the nation a triumph of intelligence: the capture of Saddam Hussein. He called that success "a tribute to our men and women now serving in Iraq." He attributed it to "the superb work of intelligence analysts who found the dictator's footprints in a vast country. The operation was carried out with skill and precision by a brave fighting force. Our servicemen and women and our coalition allies have faced many dangers. . . . Their work continues, and so do the risks."

He did mention himself at the end: "Today, on behalf of the nation, I thank the members of our Armed Forces and I congratulate them."

More details (including Lincoln's style, here).

Here's what Obama says (much of it falsely)

"I directed Leon Panetta, the director of the CIA, to make the killing or capture of bin Laden the top priority . . . even as I continued our broader effort. . . . Then, after years of painstaking work by my intelligence community I was briefed . . . I met repeatedly with my national security team . . . And finally last week I determined that I had enough intelligence to take action. . . . Today, at my direction . . ."

Clearly, a man suffering from a deep inferiority complex.

His job is to BUILD A FREE WORLD, to LEAD THE FREE WORLD, to ENCOURAGE THE FREE WORLD.

Instead, he seems to think this is about HIM.

Stalin Anbalagan, a young and dynamic FTI member has conducted interviews with farmers and reported the outcomes on his blog here. 

they don't have real freedom of selling their own produced grains and agriculture stuffs in their land to good profits.They even understand the need for economic liberty and free market concept; If those were available then really the farmers will not leave their farming jobs to seek other jobs and economic liberty will leads to prosperity was well understood by them.

Unfortunately I don't understand Tamil so let me put the summary discussion by Stalin, which is in English, first and the more detailed interviews in Tamil, subsequently. 

Summary in English

Tamil

Now in Tamil. If you know Tamil, I'm sure this will be of great value to you in understanding the plight of Indian farmers.

S&P has warned of a 1/3rd chance of India achieving  junk status (from BBB-, the LOWEST S&P rating) in the next two years, and downgraded India from stable to NEGATIVE.

Montek Singh has come out strongly, affirming that India remains a positive growth story. 

Here are the underlying facts: slowing growth, increasing fiscal deficit.

So who is right? The independent S&P or the deeply conflicted Montek Singh?

I've just returned from an India trip in February and my sense is that India is reaching a dead end in terms of infrastructure. Everything is creaking and groaning under the weight of mismanagement. All arterial roads (and indeed almost ALL) roads are jam-packed. Water supply scarcity and power scarcity are endemic. Tempers are fraying all around and one can sense GREAT INEQUALITIES.

From what Gurcharan Das told me, there is a sense that decision-making has come to a standstill. There is severe paralysis, in addition to incompetence. 

Virtually all the gains from the 1991 reforms have been exhausted.

There are no fresh governance reforms on the anvil, and the few that were floated (e.g. FDI in retail) have been shelved. The regulatory straightjacket that affects the poorest of the poor remains unchanged. People like Anna Hazare and Arvind Kejriwal, who are occupying prominent places in the political spectrum, have NO REFORM GOALS for India. I've tried to influence Arvind Kejriwal, but my trip to meet him was wasted. He has not responded. He has not even met Gurcharan Das yet – a request separately made to him.

India's socialist policymakers (I include Montek Singh among them, although I have relatively more praise than condemnation for him – However, he was presented my book BFN long ago – by a relative of mine who is his golf buddy – but did not bother to contact me to discuss any policy issues) are stymied by DEEP CHRONIC CORRUPTION at top levels in government, and the public pushing back hard on that. The alternative 'king-makers' are deeply socialist as well.

So despite my reluctance to view India's future poorly, I'm more inclined to support S&P than Montek. 

Let Pranab Mukherjee note that this (S&P downgrade) is not a wake-up call. The wake-up call was on 14 August 1947. The FOOLS who govern India have not woken up yet. I doubt if S&P can wake them.

FTI remains the ONLY hope for India, but it is too small at present to count.

I'm amused that Kaushik Basu even talks about reforms. This man, about whom I once thought well and even corresponded with, is actually a disaster for India. 

Why can't we get Deepak Lal in his place? 

Why not Nirvikar Singh?

Why not Jagdish Bhagwati?

Why Basu?

Because HE IS A SOCIALIST. This man is a socialist on the lines of Amartya Sen. He is the favourite of the socialist MMS.

Little does he understand about liberty or economic freedom.

He has a book called: Beyond the Invisible Hand: Ground­work for a New Economics that argues for collective action and a shifting of focus from effi­ciency to fairness.

He must be joking! Please go back and understand Adam Smith, Basu. Then we can talk.

India will be freed only when it recognises its best economists, who languish in various corners of the world.

Addendum

Here's further reading on Basu: http://mypraxeology.blogspot.com.au/2011/12/erroneous-views-of-chief-economic.html

I'm sharing below the excellent news just received from Liberty Institute:

Empowering India receives UN based award on e-governance

Chandra Bhan Prasad, a dalit researcher and activist says: "Dalits can't become Brahmins". 

Who says that Chandra!

You are very wrong.

All humans are Brahmins. You need to RESPECT YOURSELF as a human.

Every human is unique. Every human is a magical creation never to be repeated. 

You are Brahmin. All Dalits are Brahmins. All humans are Brahmins.

Rise. I declare you Brahmin. NEVER SAY SUCH A STUPID THING AGAIN THAT 'DALITS CAN'T BECOME BRAHMINS'. I FORBID YOU TO DEMEAN YOURSELF EVER AGAIN.

Hold your head high.

DEMAND TO BE RESPECTED.

I've just had a most pleasant morning (this ANZAC public holiday). While reading his book, Thinking Fast Thinking Slow – perhaps the most important book on human nature yet written, I thought: Why not look for a video where the professor directly explains his most important ideas? 

And I found two excellent videos – one his Nobel acceptance speech (on video) and another, a TED lecture.

Here are the links. Enjoy if you have about 50 minutes. 

Let me assure you that these videos will merely whet your appetite for his book. His book is brilliantly written. I'll talk more about it once I've had the time to complete it. Kahneman is like Dmitri Mendeleev who classified the elements. Kahmenan classifies the human mind, the human self. He is pivotal to our understanding of the "soul", when read along with the ongoing advances in brain mapping and brain function.

Yet, we must shun any implications for public policy from his work. Private businesses and political parties are well advised to use the knowledge he has generated, but for governments to dabble in such things is inviting serious danger, and creating statism. We must understand ourselves, but we must DEMAND and insist on liberty.

Nobel lecture

http://www.nobelprize.org/mediaplayer/index.php?id=531

TED