-Sarat

(1) equality a priori: A nascent idea, a new entrant in the competition is equal, indistinguishable from the others. The “merit” ought to be judged at the end of the game rather than before. The mechanism needs to function like the “blind watchmaker” with – as said in the post – the supreme indifference to who are the winners or who are the losers. Apart from prescribing the rules, and enforcing them, the “regulatory” mechanism needs to be indifferent. It must admit any willing player – an idea, a new product etc. – into the game without prejudice. This idea appears in various forms: laws of physics are same in the universe, or evolution is blind, or the state as the indifferent regulator of the market, or the uniform civil code.

(2) The core concept of freedom in the market is much deeper than it’s particular application to acquire profits. The “free market” being free, merely permits the use of the idea of an indifference to environmental consequences in the game. This indifference merely has a potential to wipe off an entire species, or even life as we know it. But the evolution, and the universe still goes on – indifferently! On those time scales, it merely is that a certain “approach” failed, i.e. the human species – for all it’s (self-defined!) intelligence, was unfit!

Whether we choose to disregard the environment, or come up with ways to include it, the concept of freedom a priori is needed, i.e. it is a prerequisite.

(3) That ideas compete freely is itself an idea. And so is the idea of a priori equality. I believe that this introduces certain problems due to self-referentiality. Ideas drive their concrete consequences which actually compete since it is the concrete form that requires finite resources. The finiteness and the materialness of resources permits a determination of their cost. If that is correct, then I am unsure about how to determine the cost of an idea itself! The cost is an object that allows us to fix the success in a competition. One way out is to treat all ideas as equal and free.

- Abhijat

You are right as rain !

Yet Siddarth Gautam, when he gained enlightenment and became free, didn’t set out to start a corporation or a business venture, or collect “stuff” – as you call it. And at the core of his teachings is the idea of ‘compassion for all’ – which is as far removed from competition as it can be. Vardhaman’s life followed a similar trajectory. They didn’t advocate for harming the environment – au contraire, but the agents of “free market” base their profits on doing just that. Let’s not even go into some other basic teachings like “asteya” and “satya” – also found in some Vedic philosophies.

You mentioned cool iPods. So what happens to an iPod and all its components once it dies and I get a new version? Are the materials toxic to water and soil? Are they safely converted back to raw materials, or reused in some way? Or is it “out of sight, out of mind,” somewhere in a landfill in a “developing” country?

I just love reading your “Objectivist-Vedic-Indic” cocktail philosophy mix, created in a free-market blender.

======

But in general, I do agree that India needs more economic freedom.

All scurrilous & vituperative * literature * in the name of freedom of expression. With no one to punish them. And ex communicate.

Such unbridled licence is ANTI VEDIC.

Which is precisely the reason behind disasters, calamities, bomb blasts……..