The Man Who Could Be King

The Man Who Could Be King

‘If’ by Rudyard Kipling is a masterwork of poetry that seems to have a timeless quality. This piece of work stemmed partly from his love of the empire and imperialism as a good thing, the celebrated white man’s burden, and also from his desire to instil a sense of purpose into all the youth that constituted England at that time. It seems to be a poem for all times, for all races if one merely looks beyond the colonial context in which it was in all probability written. And it has been immortalised in sport in its own unique way- being inscribed at the gates of SW19 5 AE- The All England Tennis And Croquet Club

IF you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too;
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or being lied about, don't deal in lies,
Or being hated, don't give way to hating,
And yet don't look too good, nor talk too wise:

The first stanza deals with the attributes that an able leader should possess. This includes the ability to maintain calm in a crisis. All of us will be familiar with this. However, it must be borne in mind that calm in a crisis does not imply passivity. Also self belief, in the face of opposition is a must, but not at the expense of being branded pig headed or dogmatic- one must be open to questions on ones ideas, opinions and logic. Patience as a virtue is also extolled here as is lack of vindictiveness, hatefulness, and an ability to be modest in speech and action. Moderation rather than extremes is recommended. It must be remembered that the British were supposed to maintain a dour, sombre grey atmosphere, one symbolising their sober tastes. The dress code at Ascots is a classic case in point- and their conduct is supposed to reflect the aforementioned spirit. Anything that was too loud would obviously be considered inappropriate- Apollonian behaviour pattern as many sociologists would proclaim, in the fashion of the discoverer, Ruth Benedict.   

If you can dream - and not make dreams your master;

If you can think - and not make thoughts your aim;

If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster

And treat those two impostors just the same;

If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken

Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,

Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,

And stoop and build 'em up with worn-out tools:

The second stanza deals with some more stellar qualities that our hero should possess, and shows up the truth of the statement- those who dream with their eyes open are the most dangerous for they have the power and the ability to act upon their dreams. Also it describes an individual as one whose visage shows little in both times of triumph and moments of adversity. The misuse of ones words to mislead the gullible should not cause one any consternation- a bit odd since that would tarnish ones image. Perhaps Kipling is being naive or he has an implicit message that false propaganda should be countered with statements containing the unabashed truth. Also he recapitulates the line about triumph and disaster, by restarting ones work should all else fail. This sounds monotonous and I daresay noble but difficult to implement. Most men would fall apart, and it would be a very strong, steely man who would be able to withstand this sort of rough treatment at the hands of fate.

If you can make one heap of all your winnings

And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,

And lose, and start again at your beginnings

And never breathe a word about your loss;

If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew

To serve your turn long after they are gone,

And so hold on when there is nothing in you

Except the Will which says to them: 'Hold on!'

Gambling is not a sin provided you always win said Roald Dahl in his revolting rhymes. Here Kipling urges our leader not to wail on losing after taking inordinate risks. Rather the leader should restart and uncomplainingly work. Cynics will retort that that is but impossible for an intelligent being is wont to lament his misfortune. Perhaps unlike King Richard II, of England, who on his loss of power to the Earl of Bolingbroke, bemoaned his ill luck and blamed all and sundry present, and decided to escape disguised as a friar, our hero  should have better manners in case of a severe crisis. This man will have both physical and mental stamina of singularly superb dimensions. Thus he would be able to hold his nerve in any crisis. Essentially the lesson is simple- one must have enough will power to weather any storm.

If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,

' Or walk with Kings - nor lose the common touch,

if neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you,

If all men count with you, but none too much;

If you can fill the unforgiving minute

With sixty seconds' worth of distance run,

Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it,

And - which is more - you'll be a Man, my son!

Empathy- that much touted word is the one doing the rounds in this paragraph. Here one must combine modesty with dignity- one must not lose the faith of either his followers or his peers- so he advocates an absence of snobbery. This will help the leader retain his popular support as also his relationships with those who matter.

He states emphatically that treat friends and foes alike- there is a quote that comes to mind- God save me from my friends. I can protect myself from my enemies by Claude Louis Hector De Villars. Hence the onus is on oneself to be wary and not to fall to the wiles of ones enemies but also from the flattery of friends. This is important as it will ensure that the leader doesn’t start living with his head in the clouds but with his feet on the ground.

The last lines deal with time management- how to make the most out of every moment, instant and microsecond. This kind of a leader has the entire world of victories as his own cake to eat and relish.  The lessons in this classic are there for all time.

Dr Swamys Analysis- Quite Elegant

http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/741779.shtml#.UKl4fJ1U0os.twitter

the above link is an article by Dr Subramanian Swamy, do read, and you will enjoy

Unrestrained Freedom

                                                          Unrestrained Freedom

Clamour is up for the entry of free markets and the restriction of governmental interference in India. We proclaim and not without some justification that the government should not tax us and decide as to how our hard earned money should be spent. The same rhetoric was used by George W Bush and now it is the turn of Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan. This seems to be the one stick that the Americans use and rather decisively as they browbeat all their opponents into submission- socialist. It’s almost the equivalent of an outcaste. Now it comes to be something even more interesting- with all the protests against the entry of FDI in retail in India, let us look beyond the political rhetorical and judge the real situation. It’s my attempt and its my attempt to make it as objective as possible.

First off is the argument that government should not interfere. The basic premise is that government should not tax us is self defeating. Simply as we maintain (at least in theory) roads, railways, and of course the army and the administrative apparatus. Society has changed from an Acephalous (Headless) state to one that is ruled by some form of government. No government may exist in utopia, and curiously the Marxist system, the very system that is being denounced by free market thinkers is actually one that sought, in the long run an end to the state apparatus. (Marx’s wishful thinking as reality had a different set of stage instructions- government came to dominate much more the communist societies.).

One attempt at doing away with all government was the hippie movement. It yielded mixed results to say the least. The breakdown in the social order was alarming. Such movements to minimise governmental interference invariably yields patchy results to say the least. We have had in India the earliest attempt at a social contract theory was in the Digha Nikaya. And Thomas Hobbes in his celebrated treatise Leviathan states explicitly that “The life of man is poor solitary nasty brutish and short while the condition of man is a condition of war against everyone because everywhere men are guided by their greatest motivation namely lust for power. The state was created as a great artificial man or monster, the leviathan to restrain such impulses .So far so good. So the state was created to restrain mankind’s greedy and self serving impulses.

Now we come to non interference. The Bush era saw a dramatic decline in the taxes paid by the richest percentage of America’s social spectrum. The argument sounds tenable and attractive- ah let the money be spent by the people themselves as they have earned. Their right shall not be encroached. The idea sounds very lucrative. But then again it is fraught with difficulties.    .

Sounds attractive in principle? Practice is a tad more tricky though I’m afraid. Remember that the very basic premise of free markets presupposes a human temperament that is selfish and self seeking. This much is in common with all social contractual theorists. Juxtapose this on to a free market thought and initially attractive free competition starts to fall apart. It seems less feasible in reality. Just like its cousin state sponsored control and absolutist state control, unfettered free markets have their problems.

Situation 1- the argument in favour of free markets states that free markets show free competition and in such a competitive environment the very demand for products will enable the price to come down. Economist Dominic Salvatore demonstrates this in a series of beautiful graphs and it seems to work well at micro level. But at a higher level, all sorts of problems crop up. If the producers collude or if one alone starts to dominate, then the system seems to have no answer. This explains the ability of cartels to dictate terms to consumers and deny them a fair price. Thus what happens is that the customer gets bullied. The very nature of the market is not homogenous. Thus some will possess an edge. And if the state doesn’t interfere in some capacity, the dominance of any one industry may go unchallenged.

Another is the argument that minimum wages for workers should be fixed by the law of demand and supply. This makes it sound that minimum wage legislation has no meaning. Also in favour of this argument that since one fixes a minimum wage for all the workers one fixes a minimum price for products for the producers of raw materials of this process then one denies the producers of raw materials the same fair price. The argument is that a free market will be able to dictate that the producers get the best price for their produce .So all will be happy in such a situation.

The same argument can be used when markets are regulated. Now if the law dictates a minimum wage for say workers in a watch assembly unit, then the suppliers of the components will also be covered by the same minimum wage. Now the free market thinkers opine it sounds attractive in principle but doesn’t work in practice. It’s probably the selfish nature of humanity that prohibits them from working such a grand design out. But then how is it that this selfish and self seeking nature of man disappears in a competitive free market is obscured by the impressive if at times hollow rhetoric. Reality is a touch more complex.

Assume for a minute two watch producers. Now if the decide to collude in the form of an anti poaching agreement, the first thing that will happen is the workers are deprived of their freedom of choice. It deliberately keeps the wages down and strangles their chances of fair pay. The same by extension can happen to their suppliers. And also the customers can be kept happy. Or wait they can be used too as minus options they will take what they get. So now the pitfalls of unmitigated capitalism are obvious.

More recent examples will also highlight the need for governmental involvement in the economy. The case of the abolition of the Glass Steagal Act, under pressure from the free market lobby in the USA comes to mind readily. Here the act removed the distinctions between investment and ordinary banks. This was one of the causes of the global financial crisis as without any regulation, the criteria for availing loans became easy. Thus the market started to expand at a rate far in excess of what would normally take place. Free markets were supposed to dictate. But in the absence of regulation there would be no proper dictation. People would do as they pleased.

If free markets sans regulations were the way to go then another step could be to do away with the entire law and order apparatus. Free markets could dictate the nature of the law and order machinery and private militias could control and protect their various patrons. Sounds uncomfortably familiar? The European penetration into Asian Markets was through such companies. It could lead to demands for rollback of various aspects of social security and liberty just because free markets may well demand it. But I may be going overboard here.

The jobs Obama created in the USA as a consequence of his stimulus plan were niggardly. This was because of the inadequate nature of his stimulus plan. The fear of inflation, being branded a socialist and also desire to get everyone on board led to this state. But then again, at least he has made a start. It was governmental interference that led to a revival of the economy. And it was the same government that big businesses ran to to bail them out during the crisis. The story of the east India was similar in many respects. The need for government is only felt by many corporations when they need security or law and order. At other times it is regarded an interference. It seems a onvenient and easily used argument.

Adam Smith once said that unfettered free markets were the way for most economies to go. But he also sounded a word of caution. He did mention the pitfalls of the unregulated companies as being a nuisance to those countries where they are established and disastrous to those countries which happen to fall under their misrule. He was speaking of the East India Company. More recent events have shown that companies have attempted to dictate political events in third world countries. It makes one wonder if unfettered free markets are really a case of real freedom and democracy or is it just a different form of colonialism.

The fact remains that government control has moved from raison de atre era- the will of the prince no longer dictates the outcome of events. Since the time of Edward the third in England, the nature of the kingdom, nation state has started to redefine itself- no more the rule of the prince but the community of the realm. Also the fact remains that the communist societies are as totalitarian as any regime in the past and such tendencies should be resisted. That will be a sure fire way to debauch the freedom enjoyed by the people and return them to a new form of indust-real slavery to use a term employed by the futurologist Alvin Toffler. But to leave markets unfettered is to invite the opposite and equally disastrous consequence- one devoid of any regulation and control. This attempt should be resisted with all our might. For unfettered free markets carry with them the same pitfalls of absolutely regulated markets- the truth of man exploiting man. And to assume that man as an economically rational being- Homo economicus- will take the best possible decisions needed  a bit naive to say the least. Historian Niall Fergusson has disputed the very concept of Homo economicus. A balance between the free market and the intereference of the government is needed. Perhaps the best method would be to aloow the present tussle to continue. For as long as dissent survives, democracy and free economics will survive. The absence of dissent will spell doom for free economics and thought no matter which path is selected- free market or communist totalitarian.

Unrestrained Freedom

                                                          Unrestrained Freedom

Clamour is up for the entry of free markets and the restriction of governmental interference in India. We proclaim and not without some justification that the government should not tax us and decide as to how our hard earned money should be spent. The same rhetoric was used by George W Bush and now it is the turn of Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan. This seems to be the one stick that the Americans use and rather decisively as they browbeat all their opponents into submission- socialist. It’s almost the equivalent of an outcaste. Now it comes to be something even more interesting- with all the protests against the entry of FDI in retail in India, let us look beyond the political rhetorical and judge the real situation. It’s my attempt and its my attempt to make it as objective as possible.

First off is the argument that government should not interfere. The basic premise is that government should not tax us is self defeating. Simply as we maintain (at least in theory) roads, railways, and of course the army and the administrative apparatus. Society has changed from an Acephalous (Headless) state to one that is ruled by some form of government. No government may exist in utopia, and curiously the Marxist system, the very system that is being denounced by free market thinkers is actually one that sought, in the long run an end to the state apparatus. (Marx’s wishful thinking as reality had a different set of stage instructions- government came to dominate much more the communist societies.).

One attempt at doing away with all government was the hippie movement. It yielded mixed results to say the least. The breakdown in the social order was alarming. Such movements to minimise governmental interference invariably yields patchy results to say the least. We have had in India the earliest attempt at a social contract theory was in the Digha Nikaya. And Thomas Hobbes in his celebrated treatise Leviathan states explicitly that “The life of man is poor solitary nasty brutish and short while the condition of man is a condition of war against everyone because everywhere men are guided by their greatest motivation namely lust for power. The state was created as a great artificial man or monster, the leviathan to restrain such impulses .So far so good. So the state was created to restrain mankind’s greedy and self serving impulses.

Now we come to non interference. The Bush era saw a dramatic decline in the taxes paid by the richest percentage of America’s social spectrum. The argument sounds tenable and attractive- ah let the money be spent by the people themselves as they have earned. Their right shall not be encroached. The idea sounds very lucrative. But then again it is fraught with difficulties.    .

Sounds attractive in principle? Practice is a tad more tricky though I’m afraid. Remember that the very basic premise of free markets presupposes a human temperament that is selfish and self seeking. This much is in common with all social contractual theorists. Juxtapose this on to a free market thought and initially attractive free competition starts to fall apart. It seems less feasible in reality. Just like its cousin state sponsored control and absolutist state control, unfettered free markets have their problems.

Situation 1- the argument in favour of free markets states that free markets show free competition and in such a competitive environment the very demand for products will enable the price to come down. Economist Dominic Salvatore demonstrates this in a series of beautiful graphs and it seems to work well at micro level. But at a higher level, all sorts of problems crop up. If the producers collude or if one alone starts to dominate, then the system seems to have no answer. This explains the ability of cartels to dictate terms to consumers and deny them a fair price. Thus what happens is that the customer gets bullied. The very nature of the market is not homogenous. Thus some will possess an edge. And if the state doesn’t interfere in some capacity, the dominance of any one industry may go unchallenged.

Another is the argument that minimum wages for workers should be fixed by the law of demand and supply. This makes it sound that minimum wage legislation has no meaning. Also in favour of this argument that since one fixes a minimum wage for all the workers one fixes a minimum price for products for the producers of raw materials of this process then one denies the producers of raw materials the same fair price. The argument is that a free market will be able to dictate that the producers get the best price for their produce .So all will be happy in such a situation.

The same argument can be used when markets are regulated. Now if the law dictates a minimum wage for say workers in a watch assembly unit, then the suppliers of the components will also be covered by the same minimum wage. Now the free market thinkers opine it sounds attractive in principle but doesn’t work in practice. It’s probably the selfish nature of humanity that prohibits them from working such a grand design out. But then how is it that this selfish and self seeking nature of man disappears in a competitive free market is obscured by the impressive if at times hollow rhetoric. Reality is a touch more complex.

Assume for a minute two watch producers. Now if the decide to collude in the form of an anti poaching agreement, the first thing that will happen is the workers are deprived of their freedom of choice. It deliberately keeps the wages down and strangles their chances of fair pay. The same by extension can happen to their suppliers. And also the customers can be kept happy. Or wait they can be used too as minus options they will take what they get. So now the pitfalls of unmitigated capitalism are obvious.

More recent examples will also highlight the need for governmental involvement in the economy. The case of the abolition of the Glass Steagal Act, under pressure from the free market lobby in the USA comes to mind readily. Here the act removed the distinctions between investment and ordinary banks. This was one of the causes of the global financial crisis as without any regulation, the criteria for availing loans became easy. Thus the market started to expand at a rate far in excess of what would normally take place. Free markets were supposed to dictate. But in the absence of regulation there would be no proper dictation. People would do as they pleased.

If free markets sans regulations were the way to go then another step could be to do away with the entire law and order apparatus. Free markets could dictate the nature of the law and order machinery and private militias could control and protect their various patrons. Sounds uncomfortably familiar? The European penetration into Asian Markets was through such companies. It could lead to demands for rollback of various aspects of social security and liberty just because free markets may well demand it. But I may be going overboard here.

The jobs Obama created in the USA as a consequence of his stimulus plan were niggardly. This was because of the inadequate nature of his stimulus plan. The fear of inflation, being branded a socialist and also desire to get everyone on board led to this state. But then again, at least he has made a start. It was governmental interference that led to a revival of the economy. And it was the same government that big businesses ran to to bail them out during the crisis. The story of the east India was similar in many respects. The need for government is only felt by many corporations when they need security or law and order. At other times it is regarded an interference. It seems a onvenient and easily used argument.

Adam Smith once said that unfettered free markets were the way for most economies to go. But he also sounded a word of caution. He did mention the pitfalls of the unregulated companies as being a nuisance to those countries where they are established and disastrous to those countries which happen to fall under their misrule. He was speaking of the East India Company. More recent events have shown that companies have attempted to dictate political events in third world countries. It makes one wonder if unfettered free markets are really a case of real freedom and democracy or is it just a different form of colonialism.

The fact remains that government control has moved from raison de atre era- the will of the prince no longer dictates the outcome of events. Since the time of Edward the third in England, the nature of the kingdom, nation state has started to redefine itself- no more the rule of the prince but the community of the realm. Also the fact remains that the communist societies are as totalitarian as any regime in the past and such tendencies should be resisted. That will be a sure fire way to debauch the freedom enjoyed by the people and return them to a new form of indust-real slavery to use a term employed by the futurologist Alvin Toffler. But to leave markets unfettered is to invite the opposite and equally disastrous consequence- one devoid of any regulation and control. This attempt should be resisted with all our might. For unfettered free markets carry with them the same pitfalls of absolutely regulated markets- the truth of man exploiting man. And to assume that man as an economically rational being- Homo economicus- will take the best possible decisions needed  a bit naive to say the least. Historian Niall Fergusson has disputed the very concept of Homo economicus. A balance between the free market and the intereference of the government is needed. Perhaps the best method would be to aloow the present tussle to continue. For as long as dissent survives, democracy and free economics will survive. The absence of dissent will spell doom for free economics and thought no matter which path is selected- free market or communist totalitarian.

                                                          Unrestrained Freedom

Clamour is up for the entry of free markets and the restriction of governmental interference in India. We proclaim and not without some justification that the government should not tax us and decide as to how our hard earned money should be spent. The same rhetoric was used by George W Bush and now it is the turn of Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan. This seems to be the one stick that the Americans use and rather decisively as they browbeat all their opponents into submission- socialist. It’s almost the equivalent of an outcaste. Now it comes to be something even more interesting- with all the protests against the entry of FDI in retail in India, let us look beyond the political rhetorical and judge the real situation. It’s my attempt and its my attempt to make it as objective as possible.

First off is the argument that government should not interfere. The basic premise is that government should not tax us is self defeating. Simply as we maintain (at least in theory) roads, railways, and of course the army and the administrative apparatus. Society has changed from an Acephalous (Headless) state to one that is ruled by some form of government. No government may exist in utopia, and curiously the Marxist system, the very system that is being denounced by free market thinkers is actually one that sought, in the long run an end to the state apparatus. (Marx’s wishful thinking as reality had a different set of stage instructions- government came to dominate much more the communist societies.).

One attempt at doing away with all government was the hippie movement. It yielded mixed results to say the least. The breakdown in the social order was alarming. Such movements to minimise governmental interference invariably yields patchy results to say the least. We have had in India the earliest attempt at a social contract theory was in the Digha Nikaya. And Thomas Hobbes in his celebrated treatise Leviathan states explicitly that “The life of man is poor solitary nasty brutish and short while the condition of man is a condition of war against everyone because everywhere men are guided by their greatest motivation namely lust for power. The state was created as a great artificial man or monster, the leviathan to restrain such impulses .So far so good. So the state was created to restrain mankind’s greedy and self serving impulses.

Now we come to non interference. The Bush era saw a dramatic decline in the taxes paid by the richest percentage of America’s social spectrum. The argument sounds tenable and attractive- ah let the money be spent by the people themselves as they have earned. Their right shall not be encroached. The idea sounds very lucrative. But then again it is fraught with difficulties.    .

Sounds attractive in principle? Practice is a tad more tricky though I’m afraid. Remember that the very basic premise of free markets presupposes a human temperament that is selfish and self seeking. This much is in common with all social contractual theorists. Juxtapose this on to a free market thought and initially attractive free competition starts to fall apart. It seems less feasible in reality. Just like its cousin state sponsored control and absolutist state control, unfettered free markets have their problems.

Situation 1- the argument in favour of free markets states that free markets show free competition and in such a competitive environment the very demand for products will enable the price to come down. Economist Dominic Salvatore demonstrates this in a series of beautiful graphs and it seems to work well at micro level. But at a higher level, all sorts of problems crop up. If the producers collude or if one alone starts to dominate, then the system seems to have no answer. This explains the ability of cartels to dictate terms to consumers and deny them a fair price. Thus what happens is that the customer gets bullied. The very nature of the market is not homogenous. Thus some will possess an edge. And if the state doesn’t interfere in some capacity, the dominance of any one industry may go unchallenged.

Another is the argument that minimum wages for workers should be fixed by the law of demand and supply. This makes it sound that minimum wage legislation has no meaning. Also in favour of this argument that since one fixes a minimum wage for all the workers one fixes a minimum price for products for the producers of raw materials of this process then one denies the producers of raw materials the same fair price. The argument is that a free market will be able to dictate that the producers get the best price for their produce .So all will be happy in such a situation.

The same argument can be used when markets are regulated. Now if the law dictates a minimum wage for say workers in a watch assembly unit, then the suppliers of the components will also be covered by the same minimum wage. Now the free market thinkers opine it sounds attractive in principle but doesn’t work in practice. It’s probably the selfish nature of humanity that prohibits them from working such a grand design out. But then how is it that this selfish and self seeking nature of man disappears in a competitive free market is obscured by the impressive if at times hollow rhetoric. Reality is a touch more complex.

Assume for a minute two watch producers. Now if the decide to collude in the form of an anti poaching agreement, the first thing that will happen is the workers are deprived of their freedom of choice. It deliberately keeps the wages down and strangles their chances of fair pay. The same by extension can happen to their suppliers. And also the customers can be kept happy. Or wait they can be used too as minus options they will take what they get. So now the pitfalls of unmitigated capitalism are obvious.

More recent examples will also highlight the need for governmental involvement in the economy. The case of the abolition of the Glass Steagal Act, under pressure from the free market lobby in the USA comes to mind readily. Here the act removed the distinctions between investment and ordinary banks. This was one of the causes of the global financial crisis as without any regulation, the criteria for availing loans became easy. Thus the market started to expand at a rate far in excess of what would normally take place. Free markets were supposed to dictate. But in the absence of regulation there would be no proper dictation. People would do as they pleased.

If free markets sans regulations were the way to go then another step could be to do away with the entire law and order apparatus. Free markets could dictate the nature of the law and order machinery and private militias could control and protect their various patrons. Sounds uncomfortably familiar? The European penetration into Asian Markets was through such companies. It could lead to demands for rollback of various aspects of social security and liberty just because free markets may well demand it. But I may be going overboard here.

The jobs Obama created in the USA as a consequence of his stimulus plan were niggardly. This was because of the inadequate nature of his stimulus plan. The fear of inflation, being branded a socialist and also desire to get everyone on board led to this state. But then again, at least he has made a start. It was governmental interference that led to a revival of the economy. And it was the same government that big businesses ran to to bail them out during the crisis. The story of the east India was similar in many respects. The need for government is only felt by many corporations when they need security or law and order. At other times it is regarded an interference. It seems a onvenient and easily used argument.

Adam Smith once said that unfettered free markets were the way for most economies to go. But he also sounded a word of caution. He did mention the pitfalls of the unregulated companies as being a nuisance to those countries where they are established and disastrous to those countries which happen to fall under their misrule. He was speaking of the East India Company. More recent events have shown that companies have attempted to dictate political events in third world countries. It makes one wonder if unfettered free markets are really a case of real freedom and democracy or is it just a different form of colonialism.

The fact remains that government control has moved from raison de atre era- the will of the prince no longer dictates the outcome of events. Since the time of Edward the third in England, the nature of the kingdom, nation state has started to redefine itself- no more the rule of the prince but the community of the realm. Also the fact remains that the communist societies are as totalitarian as any regime in the past and such tendencies should be resisted. That will be a sure fire way to debauch the freedom enjoyed by the people and return them to a new form of indust-real slavery to use a term employed by the futurologist Alvin Toffler. But to leave markets unfettered is to invite the opposite and equally disastrous consequence- one devoid of any regulation and control. This attempt should be resisted with all our might. For unfettered free markets carry with them the same pitfalls of absolutely regulated markets- the truth of man exploiting man. And to assume that man as an economically rational being- Homo economicus- will take the best possible decisions needed  a bit naive to say the least. Historian Niall Fergusson has disputed the very concept of Homo economicus. A balance between the free market and the intereference of the government is needed. Perhaps the best method would be to aloow the present tussle to continue. For as long as dissent survives, democracy and free economics will survive. The absence of dissent will spell doom for free economics and thought no matter which path is selected- free market or communist totalitarian.