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.

Thanks to Catalaxy files, came across this pictorial documentation of the total transformation of East Germany from a socialist to (predominantly) capitalist nation.

I can guarantee that India will be a most amazing and beautiful sight after it becomes a capitalist nation.

Before

After

Before

After:

Before:

After:

Many more pictures of this sort. Click here.

The debates regarding privacy and freedom of speech, along with complex information such as encryption technologies, are now reaching feverish pitch (see references below).

We seem to have suddenly become very private.

The reality, though, is that nature has not made us particularly private. We are ordinary animals that breathe, eat, drink, produce and trade goods, and reproduce. Except for a few trade secrets there is virtually NOTHING that each of us does that is particularly unique. We are more or less the same. 

And instead of wanting privacy, most of us want to advertise our wares (e.g. through books/articles/advertisements), or are otherwise not actively hiding from the rest of the world (like the Unabomber).

In other words, most people DON'T CARE about privacy. For good reason. 

Privacy "experts" miss the point. They wonder why we are generally so relaxed about having our data float around freely on the internet. That is because we are not criminals, and have little (or nothing) to hide.

What about criminals who make use of this data for criminal purposes? Well, it is getting very hard to conduct a successful identity crime (by successful I mean not getting caught), because it is impossible to build a comprehensive set of false alibi that doesn't have holes in the story. The "data points" needed to genuinely steal an identity are far more than can be collected from the internet.

True, a few criminals will succeed in stealing from our credit cards, but most such theft occurs in IT departments of banks where some rogue programmer skims off millions of dollars, one cent at a time.  

Therefore most people don't care whether google uses their information to provide them with customised advertisements. What difference does it make since no one (very few) ever clicks on these ads anyway? 

I've come up with a simple formula: If someone wants to make use of information about me as part of a commercial enterprise, then I've got little to fear. After all, they'll only be able to use such information as a "data point" and match with other millions of data points to 'fine-tune' their services – so that I will PAY a little bit more (currently google, facebook, wordpress are all free).

I know that they will use my data for MY benefit, since they want me to HONESTLY pay for the service they provide. They are not out there to break into my house and steal my ironing board.

Therefore google/facebook etc. are all fine, for most purposes. 

But when someone uses my data for CONTROL, then I've got to be careful. Only the government falls into this category. Therefore I fear government control over data. 

We need to keep a sense of balance about PURPOSE and INTENT in this debate regarding privacy. Else we will quickly lose our heads and go overboard.

References

http://www.theage.com.au/technology/technology-news/how-to-cover-your-tracks-on-the-internet-20120504-1y41x.html

Also hear David Friedman: http://sabhlokcity.com/2012/05/milton-friedmans-son-david-points-out-key-fallacies-in-the-climate-change-alarm/

Most Western governments across the world are suffering deep distress. They are bleeding because public expectations have sky-rocketed, and they are under relentless pressure to perform.

Indeed, this is happening to most governments – no matter where they are located. Even China. Even Burma. And perhaps even N.Korea.

The reason? 

Traditional media was gentle and kind. Traditional newspapers edited out any virulent "letters to the editor". They blocked opinion editorials that spoke the truth. They always sided with governments. They were often the mouthpiece of government. Their editors partied with governments. Booze flowed. 

Therefore, in the past, if you were unhappy with corruption or misgovernance you had MERELY ONE VOTE to express yourself (at best). You were activated once in three/four/five years. 

But a vote means little. The accountability achievable through a vote is feeble, even pointless.

But now you are a VOICE.

The voice of the people is rapidly growing into a deafening crescendo.

And governments are simply unable to cope with it.

Any mistake of judgement is punished BADLY in the social media. Jokes/ cartoons spread widely and instantly, undermining any 'dignity' that stupid politicians might have managed to protect in the past.

Till recently traditional media protected and sheltered the useless politicians of this world. But it can't now.

It is game over for politicians – EVERYWHERE.

And for traditional media, which has become increasingly irrelevant.

The social media, the blog sphere, the citizen sphere – is TOTALLY overhwhelming the traditional forms of government – and media.

The genie is out of the box. The people now have a voice.

Here's a nice video to illustrate this point:

Listen to what Obama has to say about the market system – the same market system that CREATED USA's wealth:

“The market will take care of everything,” they tell us…. But here’s the problem: it doesn’t work. It has never worked. It didn’t work when it was tried in the decade before the Great Depression. It’s not what led to the incredible postwar booms of the ’50s and ’60s. And it didn’t work when we tried it during the last decade. I mean, understand, it’s not as if we haven’t tried this theory."

—President Barack Obama, Osawatomie, Kansas, December 6, 2011

We all know about the famous hole in the wall experiments of Sugata Mitra. Suresh Anand shared the following TED video. It is amazing, astonishing, particularly given my recent readings on the human brain. It all makes sense now (particularly why memory is enhanced through group discussion, etc.). 

It is not going to be possible to explain this video, so please watch it. It will totally open you mind.

I'd particularly recommend it to Anil Sharma, senior FTI member (in case he's not seen it yet) who has been working on an education project in the heart of UP. This might prove very helpful to him (given his contacts in UK, where he could tap into Sugata's granny network: I had actually spoken on Skype with his students in UP from Melbourne and found it a brilliant idea, but getting grannies from England would be even better! ) I'd suggest that Anil consider catching a train on the weekend to meet Sugata Mitra for new ideas.

What I liked particularly was the Hayekian message that Sugata brings. That interests me a lot.

Somnath Bharati (FTI member and the new President of IIT Delhi alumni association) may please consider writing to him about FTI. FTI would be very fortunate if people like Sugata with EXTREME innovation and vision join.The goal, the challenge, of providing HIGH QUALITY education to millions of Indians drives me to desperation, at times. Sugata's new ways of thinking could just make it happen. 

Addendum

Links sent by Suresh

Despite the hype about promoting education, what the government is actually saying (by directly managing government schools) is this: "You, Graduate of education, are a fool. You MUST work under bureaucratic supervision."

You may be BETTER qualified than me (IAS officer) but you MUST work under my thumb. 

You must do what I say.

You must report to me.

You are accountable to ME, not to parents. 

You are my slave. You shall not exercise any independence.

You are a mere highly qualified graduate while I'm a BUREAUCRAT. Who can possibly be better than a bureaucrat?

You must worship me.

You must pray to me.

I don't trust you. You must trust in me.

For some reason it appears to some people that a school is unlike any other business. It appears to them that a school is a holy service that can only be provided by the government. 

It appears to me that the level of education required to teach schoolchildren is not very high. It doesn't need a PhD in physics to teach school level science. One doesn't have to be an outstanding writer to be able to teach school level language, nor the world's greatest artist to teach good art.

On a scale of 1 to 10, where 10 reflects the highest level of skill or education in a particular discipline, a schoolteacher needs a mere 5. It takes far more skill to become the head chef of a five-star restaurant than to teach schoolchildren.

Although the Indian government runs restaurants (e.g. Ashoka), most of us can easily agree that citizens in their private capacity can readily supply restaurants and hotels. 

And if the private market can readily supply the skilled business of restaurants and hotels (leaving alone car factories or spacecraft), there seems to be no reason to believe that the private market cannot supply schools of high quality. If a person with appropriate training is hired as a school teacher or principal, there is no reason why he or she cannot teach in, or manage, a school.

So why do people think that schools are different category of business than hotels? Despite a person having appropriate qualifications to teach, it appears to them that only governments can run schools.

Do they believe that a qualified teacher suddenly becomes more capable by teaching in a government school?

Is there a mysterious spiritual ritual that is performed in schools that upgrades the skills of teachers?

This issue (of BLIND FAITH IN GOVERNMENT SCHOOLS) comes up while discussing the privatisation of schools and the use of parental choice (e.g. school vouchers) to resolve the problem of equal opportunity for the poorest sections of the community.

I'd appreciate any enlightenment that you could offer me in this regard. I'm completely confused why the most OBVIOUS solution to upgrade school standards, and to ensure the best value of taxpayer money for educating the poorest of the poor (- privatisation of schools and the use of parental choice - details in BFN) runs into so much resistance when I try to explain it to people.

Why are government bureaucrats considered so capable that only they know how to manage schools?

When I headed the school policy system in Assam (as Secretary to the Government) I did not think I was particularly gifted in this regard. Why are people DESPERATE to get a stupid babu (e.g. IAS) to teach their children?

By the way, ALMOST ALL THOSE WHO ARE PASSIONATE ABOUT GOVERNMENT SCHOOLS SEND THEIR CHILDREN TO PRIVATE SCHOOLS.

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

This is from a crowd-sourcing site: http://www.maps4aid.com/reports#. I believe such a thing, when linked with more data (directly from all the people), and covering a wide array of issues that affect citizens, could become a very useful starting point for the parallel (citizens’) government that I have suggested.

Such efforts would empower citizens to directly understand what’s going on in their society, and work towards resolving as many of these issues as they directly can. Anyway, this is my very preliminary hypothesis. All depends on the kind of technology used and its capabilities.

All this info below is all ONLY FOR APRIL 15 2012. The day is not yet over.

Odisha: 9 teenagers held for gang rape of a 10th std girl. Two of the accused are her classmates.

Nine teenage boys have been arrested on the charge of gang-raping a 10th standard girl in tribal-dominated Sundargarh district of Odisha. Two…

Surat: 11 year old girl raped by two youths. One arrested. 0

A 11-year-old girl was raped by two youths at an isolated location in Althan here on Thursday night. Montu Kalidas (17) had taken the girl…

Man caught by activists and TV channel crew for harassing a married woman. 0

A former vice-president of Haripalem village of Atchutapuram mandal was taken into custody by the Gajuwaka police on Friday on the charge of…

Karnataka Child Welfare department official arrested on rape charges. 0

A top official of Karnataka's child development department has been arrested for allegedly raping a 38-year-old woman, who runs a school for…

Odisha: 50 year old woman attacked in the name of With Hunting. 2 Held. 0

A 50-year-old woman was attacked by two persons on the suspicion of practising witchcraft. Krushna Karketta (45) and his nephew Samir Karketta…

Dowry Harrassment: 3 get 10 years in jail for pushing woman to suicide. 0

A Delhi court has sentenced three persons to 10 years in jail for allegedly pushing a young woman to take her own life due to constant harassment….

Jaipur: Mentally challenged girl raped by witch doctor under the pretext of treatment. 0

A 20-year-old mentally challenged girl was allegedly raped by a witch doctor who was approached by her family members for a cure for her ailment….

Imagine what would happen if information re: crimes against the lower castes, children, and others, were similarly aggregated. And corruption. And so on….

The data would be powerful in the hands of social reformers and others involved in social work.