Where in today’s world do you see examples of two individuals engaging in trade (one example is when I get my hair cut by a barber)? Almost always, at one end is a powerful corporation, and not-so powerful individuals at the other end. Or governments engaging in trade agreements. And a corporation is not an individual.

Some more questions.

If the owner of a pharmaceutical company holding patents for a life-saving drug (no one else has come up with it) decides to discriminate based on some arbitrary criteria that has nothing whatsoever to do with its profits/revenues, and limits the sale only to certain individuals that he sees fit, how do you account for the loss of human lives because of this decision? And by the time free market corrects the situation, if it does, how about the people who lost their lives because of non-availability of drugs through a decision that had nothing to do with economics?

There’s talk of privatizing fire-stations in the US. What if tomorrow the only fire-station in my town refuses to come to my house when it catches fire because I’m brown (and they decide to discriminate against browns)? You could say that I have recourse to courts, to sue them or start a new fire-station that will serve browns (or a fire-station that won’t discriminate), but what about my family that was burnt alive because of the fire-station not responding?

I think you are being disingenuous by using the word “coercion” because it always has a negative and restrictive meaning associated with it (no one likes to be coerced) and then cleverly use it to justify free trade and discrimination.

Which is not to say that the society doesn’t place some restrictions, or that governments are perfect, but you’re not taking into account all the benefits that an individual gets from living in a society. I mean if I live on my private island all by myself, I have full freedom and zero coercion as compared to another individual living in a current democratic society.

Is it a coercion that I’m forced to drive on the right side of the road when I want to drive on the left? Is my “freedom” to drive on the left side being curtailed by the “state” or the tyranny of the majority (damn those right-side drivers)?

You haven’t addressed another v. important point – “concentration of power in the hands of a few is never good for the individual or the society.” This has been proven time and again. What happens to corporations and individuals under your theory?

Maybe you should spend a few months on the freedom ship, test out the pragmatism of your theory and then write about it.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal…

I was watching a documentary about Thomas Jefferson’s life and then went and read the full declaration of independence again. One thing I realized that the phrase above in inherently not “true” in some sense. Men (and women) are NOT created equal, the “random draw” (a phrase you use so often) of conditions they are born in (caste, country etc.) and handicaps imposed by genetic and other natural causes inherently makes everyone unequal and unique. What then did Jefferson mean by all men are created equal?

I think what he mean was neither the “state” nor individuals should be allowed to treat other individuals as unequal based on qualities that were in some sense beyond the individual’s choosing. These include things such as gender, race, caste, religion etc. Particular qualifications required for a job are to a large extent under the individual’s control. Hence one can discriminate against people on the basis of particular qualifications.

Also I agree with Amit above in that this distinction between “state” and the individual is kind of false in this matter.

If an individual owns a restaurant and refuses to serve people of certain race or caste… are you saying that this would be OK? Further if I am getting what you are saying, existence of such restaurants which discriminate against people of certain race or caste indicates a shortage of restaurants because otherwise market economy will weed out those restaurants which discriminate. Why does this somehow seem counterintuitive? I mean on the one hand I can see your point… but on the other I still feel that what the restaurant owner in my example is doing should be unlawful! Could you explain more?

As for your example of blind pilots – here’s where it differs from real-life. Before you buy a ticket or board a plane, do you send in a questionnaire to the company asking them whether the pilot on the plane is not blind/has good eyesight, and the company has taken measures to ensure passenger safety? Will the company be transparent and make this information of a blind pilot available to passengers before they decide to buy a ticket? How about those passengers who die as a result of the company hiring a blind pilot? Sure, I’m all for freedom as long as the company is transparent and provides full disclosure to customers. How often does that happen in real life? I mean state regulations are not really stopping a company from telling the truth, are they?

All these Ayn Randian ideas are well and good in theory, but as long as we have dishonest sellers, we’ll have buyer’s beware (in the form of state restrictions). Once there are honest sellers, there won’t be a need for buyer’s beware.

And one thing I don’t understand is how does an idea of individual freedom mutate into full freedom for a corporation – an abstraction & a collective that has done more to limit individual freedom in modern history than any other entity. Very twisted.

All we need is economic freedom to be facilitated by the State. But isn’t the State infested with individuals who have their own discriminations? (You don’t have anything against individual discrimination!) Where do we draw the line between State discrimination and discriminations by individuals representing the State?