**People vs the State control of trade and resources** --- **Public Sector** *noun* The part of an economy that is controlled by the state. **Private Sector** *noun* The part of the national economy that is not under direct state control. _— Oxford Dictionary_ --- At the end of the previous section, it was stated that an Azadist government is a “small” one. This does not refer strictly to the number of officials (although it may include that), but more importantly to the level of influence the government has over the economy. Naturally, this means that Azadism places more responsibility on the people themselves to provide most of society’s services. In other words, public services are replaced by the private sector. Initially, many readers may have a negative reaction to a larger private sector, often comparing examples such as the UK’s NHS with the “private” healthcare system of the United States in order to highlight the perceived failure of privatising industries. Another common criticism is the fear that monopolies might form, allowing powerful firms to dominate and exploit consumers. This section will address the fallacies in this way of thinking, and will argue that the private sector can not only outperform the public sector, but do so in a way that upholds individual freedom and delivers better outcomes for both consumers and producers. ## Langar, Dasvandh and Choice To help dispel the negative connotations often associated with private industry, this section begins by explaining why the institution of _Langar_ is, in fact, a _private enterprise_[^1], not a public one. Langar is an effort in which _private_ individuals within a community come together and contribute _voluntarily_ to provide free meals to anyone who wants them. This forms the foundation of the spiritual purpose of Langar as a means to not only to feed the community, but to offer a real and practical expression of spirituality through _seva_. Using the Oxford Dictionary definitions of the private and public sectors, it is clear that Langar is a private effort and operates without any State intervention[^2]. There is no Government involvement: no taxes are required, no State-mandated diet is enforced, and no regulation governs the process. Langar is managed entirely by the private sector, or in other words, the community themselves organises it through voluntary action. Those who choose to participate are free to donate as much or as little as they wish, or to contribute in various other ways, without State pressure or the threat of punishment.  The only authority involved is the private religious institution itself, which may own the building, determine the dietary requirements, and oversee the day-to-day running of the Langar. However, this is fundamentally different from a Government authority, because participation is entirely voluntary. Being a private institution means it has no legal power over those who choose not to take part. A Gurdwara cannot forcibly collect donations or assign labour. Instead, it relies on individuals in the community to contribute by their own choice. If the Gurdwara management recognises the need for more resources, it can only make a request — not a demand. Unlike the State, it does not depend on the threat of force to compel participation. Whereas having a Government manage this would mean that everyone must participate, regardless of individual choice. This is because such an effort would have to be funded through taxes instead. The core essence of _Seva_ is eroded when people are forced to contribute, rather than doing so out of compassion. Choosing to sacrifice one’s own time, money, or effort should be a decision made independently of State influence. Otherwise, in principle, we are suggesting that the State has the authority to enforce its own ethics onto others. As mentioned briefly in the first section (and will be further expanded upon later), granting the State a monopoly on defining ethics beyond the Non-Aggression Principle introduces serious dangers. Additionally, we must ask ourselves: is forced ethics truly in line with what Sikhi promotes? Does State-enforced participation in _Seva_ enhance its spiritual benefit? Would paying for Langar through taxation carry the same personal and spiritual meaning as doing so through voluntary donation? _Gurbani_ already provides a clear answer to this, though that will be explored more fully in the later section on the nature of taxes. It may be argued that the Gurus themselves "taxed" the Sikhs through the concept of _Dasvandh_, but this is a critical misunderstanding. One of the most important distinctions to make is the difference between taxation and Dasvandh. Dasvandh is a voluntary offering, while tax is a compulsory payment enforced through either direct force or the threat of force. There are no examples in Sikh history of the Gurus forcibly collecting Dasvandh from Sikhs[^3]. However, it may be said that that Dasvandh is an obligation for every Sikh, just as tax is an obligation for every citizen. However, the crucial difference is this: there is no obligation to be a Sikh. The Guru never forced anyone to convert to Sikhi. Instead, the Gurus relied on the truth of their message, the veracity of their argument and lived what they preached in order to inspire and persuade others to walk the path they pushed. This is demonstrated powerfully in the story of the _40 Mukte_, where Guru Gobind Singh Ji permitted the apostasy of 40 of his Sikhs, who later repented, returned, and achieved martyrdom. It illustrates the emphasis on individual choice even in moments of profound spiritual trial. Additionally, Bhai Gurdas Ji in his *Kabitt Svaiye* communicates the effort made by the Guru in order to reach his Sikh. However, the initial step in that direction is always down to the Sikh, thereby highlighting the voluntary, non-coercive nature of adopting the path of Sikhi. <br> > **ਚਰਨ ਸਰਨ ਗੁਰੁ ਏਕ ਪੈਂਡਾ ਜਾਇ ਚਲ ਸਤਿਗੁਰ ਕੋਟਿ ਪੈਂਡਾ ਆਗੇ ਹੋਇ ਲੇਤ ਹੈ ॥** > A disciple who walks one step towards the Guru to take their refuge and goes to them with devotion and humility, the True Guru advances to receive the devotee by taking a million steps towards them > > **ਏਕ ਬਾਰ ਸਤਿਗੁਰ ਮੰਤ੍ਰ ਸਿਮਰਨ ਮਾਤ੍ਰ ਸਿਮਰਨ ਤਾਂਹਿ ਬਾਰੰਬਾਰ ਗੁਰ ਹੇਤ ਹੈ ॥** > He who unites with the Lord by remembering the incantation of the Guru even once, the True Guru remembers him millions of times. > > *― Bhai Gurdas Ji, Kabitt Svaiye, Kabitt 111* <br> An individual has the complete freedom to join the Sikh faith and part of the expected traditions may include paying Dasvandh. Since the initial decision to be Sikh was voluntary, any other obligations that stem from this, such as keeping Kes, taking Khanda Di Pahaul and Dasvandh, are also thereby a voluntary decision at its core[^4]. ## Competition In brief, Charles Darwin’s theory of natural selection outlines that organisms on Earth have been in constant competition to survive for billions of years. The ongoing struggle to survive and reproduce has propelled life from simple microbes to the complexity of human beings. None of this would have occurred without *competition*. Organisms compete for food to survive and for mates to pass on their genes. Only those that can adapt to their environment effectively and out-compete members of other species, as well as their own, are best positioned to survive. By obtaining sufficient nutrition and successfully reproducing, these organisms pass on traits that gave them a competitive advantage. Those unable to do so die out. Over time, advantageous traits are passed down, while less beneficial features are gradually filtered out. This process of natural selection drives evolution, leading from the simplicity of single-celled organisms to the complexity of human beings with sophisticated systems such as eyes, brains, and even higher consciousness. All of this evolutionary progress was fuelled by *competition*. Viewing the economy similarly as an ecosystem, we can draw clear parallels between natural selection and competitive free markets. The businesses are the organisms, and the competition between them is the natural selection. Only those businesses that are able to provide goods and services at a price and quality that there is a consumer demand for are able to survive and out-compete. Businesses compete by inventing new technologies, adapting and improving existing ones, or by finding more efficient methods of production. This constant striving to get ahead of competitors drives innovation and leaves consumers with products and services of a better quality and at a better price. In this sense, innovation is evolution. For organisms, their success could be measured by their ability to obtain food and secure mates, whereas the in the private sector, business ventures hinge on their ability to generate a *profit*. This naturally results in a private sector driven primarily by a profit-maximising motive. Considering common perceptions of the term “profit,” this may initially appear unethical. However, if we look into what profit is actually a measure of, it is simply how well a particular enterprise or effort is able to minimise costs and maximise income. If something is costing too much and simultaneously returning too little, this is an *inefficient* use of resources. In the same way, if an animal expends more energy obtaining food than it gains from consuming it, then given this energy deficit, it isn’t going to last very long. Thus, a _loss_ is the market’s way of signalling that a particular use of resources is inefficient and that the organiser of this venture should probably stop[^5]. Similarly, profit is also a _market signal_ that indicates a particular use of resources is effectively meeting market demand and, therefore, should likely continue. Applying this further, two businesses of a similar nature can be assessed for their *efficiency* in managing the same resources by comparing how much profit each generates. The one with higher profit generally indicates a greater degree of efficiency. However, this does not mean that a company can engage in socially unacceptable practices to achieve maximum profits, such as cutting costs in ways that severely reduce working conditions. In a highly competitive industry with low barriers to entry, the labour force would have a variety of choices regarding where to work. Thus, a company offering substandard wages, poor working conditions, or minimal benefits (compared to the rest of the market) will naturally give workers less incentive to apply or stay there. Every company must strike a balance between cost reduction and maintaining competitive standards, all while remaining profitable. If it fails to do so, it will be outcompeted by those that can. Over time, this fosters an environment of continuous improvement or evolution, as those unable to meet such standards are gradually filtered out. Another example to consider is when companies use unethical methods to acquire resources in the first place. Under Azadism, there are two possible responses to this scenario. Firstly, if the means of accessing resources violates the aforementioned Non-Aggression Principle (NAP), then it is the Government’s duty to intervene and prosecute the offenders. This should not be some petty fine that can be paid easily and written off as a business expense. The penalty should be severe enough to act as a significant deterrent against such violations. Secondly, these methods of production must also factor into the decision-making of consumers. The product is the outcome of its production process. If a clothing brand uses unethical practices in its manufacturing process and consumers continue to buy its products despite knowing this, they too share responsibility. A product is the outcome of its *product*ion process. If a clothing brand uses unethical practices in its manufacturing process and consumers continue to buy its products despite knowing this, they too share responsibility. Moreover, companies cannot legally conceal such information. When unethical practices are inevitably exposed, they will be prosecuted through the justice system. Establishing when and where the NAP is breached is the sole responsibility of the courts within an Azadist State. Now, all of that describes the mechanics of competition within the private sector. On the other hand, public sector institutions disrupt this framework entirely. When industries are *nationalised* and brought under public sector control, the State takes over the management of resources. This is quite literally putting the power of resource management into the hands of a small group of administrators, which would have otherwise been in the domain of the private sector, or in other words, the people themselves. Nationalised industries can then create the illusion of offering a “free” service, as the income of a public enterprise comes from taxpayer money instead, rather than direct consumer payments. Since tax is collected through coercion (which is a breach of the NAP by design) rather than voluntary choice, there is no true way to gauge demand for public goods and services and adjust supply accordingly. A public organisation receives income regardless of consumer demand. The laws of supply and demand that drive price signalling in the private sector are no longer present in a public enterprise. This makes it far more difficult to allocate resources efficiently and apply them to where they would be used best. On top of this, the costs for operating public services are passed on to taxpayers, leaving little incentive for it to have to operate efficiently or innovate to stay in the market. In a private competition model, if a company is misallocating resources, another private enterprise can step in, offer an alternative, and the capture demand instead. The same applies to the quality of goods or services. A private enterprise must constantly strive to provide the best possible product or service to avoid being outcompeted. Under private competition, if one business is able to reduce costs while maintaining or improving quality, it can pass those savings onto consumers in the form of lower prices. This allows it to outcompete less efficient businesses while still offering a comparable or superior product. Thus, the incentive to maximise profit and maintain competitiveness by providing the best product is most effectively realised in the private sector. In contrast, a nationalised industry faces no such pressure. The incentive structure is very different with public sector organisations since they have no competition, and thus no real drive to reduce costs, be efficient or innovate. They are paid for regardless of performance or output, unlike private ventures who die if they do not successfully manage supply and demand. Even when private firms exist alongside public ones in the same industry, it is very difficult for a private firm to compete with something that provides a “free” service due to the State enterprise’s “business costs” being paid for by the taxpayer and its income also covered by that taxation. If anything, this is *unfair* competition, propped up and sustained by the State. It effectively hinders the people’s direct ability and autonomy to decide for themselves where best to allocate their own money, placing that power instead in the hands of the Government to determine what is best for them. To re-emphasise, under Azadism, the ideal role of Government is to maintain a healthy, competitive, and fair free-market economy that functions strictly within the boundaries of law. As soon as the State oversteps this role as the guardian of the market and instead becomes an active participant, the emergence of unfair advantages becomes inevitable. For the Sikh Panth, competition is neither immoral nor a foreign concept. As Sikhs we have been competing in every aspect since our inception. From Guru Nanak conversing in debate with the Yogis and Siddhas (exchanges which later on formed the basis of Jap Ji Sahib), Guru Angad Dev establishing the Mal Akhara at Khadur Sahib, encouraging his Sikhs to wrestle with each other and become familiar with combat[^6], to Guru Hargobind Sahib who “competed” with the Mughals in multiple battles and Guru Gobind Singh who also followed this example, as well as promoted competition between his court poets and philosophers through offering vast rewards of land and gold. Competition is nothing unethical in of itself, it is only the people competing who can engage in moral or immoral methods. Competition is merely the nature of things. <br> > **ਤੁਮ ਹੀ ਦਿਨ ਰਜਨੀ ਤੁਹੀ ਤੁਮ ਹੀ ਜੀਅਨ ਉਪਾਇ ॥** > You (God) are the day, the night is you, you yourself created all living beings, > > **ਕਉਤਕ ਹੇਰਨ ਕੇ ਨਮਿਤ ਤਿਨ ਮੌ ਬਾਦ ਬਢਾਇ ॥੯॥** > To watch this drama, disputes were made (by God) to arise ||9|| > > … > > **ਪ੍ਰਿਥਮ ਉਪਾਵਹੁ ਜਗਤ ਤੁਮ ਤੁਮ ਹੀ ਪੰਥ ਬਨਾਇ ॥** > First you created the world, then you yourself established the various paths, > > **ਆਪ ਤੁਹੀ ਝਗਰਾ ਕਰੋ ਤੁਮ ਹੀ ਕਰੋ ਸਹਾਇ ॥੧੫॥** > You yourself create (and engage in the) conflicts, then you yourself also help them ||15|| > > *― Sri Guru Gobind Singh, Shastar Naam Mala* <br> The concept of competition may initially appear selfish and destructive. However, it is fundamentally the process of filtering out the weak, destroying it, and in its place planting new seeds of development. Competition is destructive and constructive, it must be seen from both sides of the equation. When applied within the boundaries of the law and society, with the correct safety nets (which will be covered in the next chapter) in place, competition can and has lead to great leaps in innovation and human flourishing. Often, extraordinary achievements arise in times of hardship. When human beings are placed in competitive environments, they are driven to work harder, smarter and often unlock levels of success previously thought to be unattainable. It is for this reason that Sun Tzu, in his _Art of War_, advises placing one’s forces in situations where they have no route of escape, something that the author Robert Greene refers to as the “death-ground” strategy[^7]. By placing troops in a position where there is no escape, where retreat is not an option, they are left with no choice but to fight. This, in turn, compels them to fight with a greater intensity than they otherwise would, thereby increasing their odds of success. <br> > _“For it is precisely when a force has fallen into harm's way that is capable of striking a blow for victory.”_ > >  —Sun Tzu's Art of War, ss. 11.59: The Nine Situations[^8] <br> However, this principle is not limited to life-or-death situations. Competition more broadly creates a sense of urgency, which is a crucial factor in driving human beings towards success and productivity. Consider the difference in motivation between someone who feels no sense of urgency and someone who does. How many students would complete their assignments if there were no deadlines? It is far more likely that if you have a goal, someone to beat, deadlines to meet, an obstacle to overcome that you will use your human potential to its fullest[^9]. Even the Guru employs this strategy in their *GurBani* when encouraging people to engage in *Bhagti*[^10]: <br> > **ਰਸਨਾ ਰਾਮ ਰਾਮ ਬਖਾਨੁ ॥** > With your tongue, chant the Name of the Lord. > > **ਗੁਨ ਗੋੁਪਾਲ ਉਚਾਰੁ ਦਿਨੁ ਰੈਨਿ ਭਏ ਕਲਮਲ ਹਾਨ ॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥** > Chanting the Glorious Praises of the Lord, day and night, your sins shall be eradicated. ||Pause|| > > **ਤਿਆਗਿ ਚਲਨਾ ਸਗਲ ਸੰਪਤ ਕਾਲੁ ਸਿਰ ਪਰਿ ਜਾਨੁ ॥** > You shall have to leave behind all your riches when you depart. Death is hanging over your head - know this well! > > **ਮਿਥਨ ਮੋਹ ਦੁਰੰਤ ਆਸਾ ਝੂਠੁ ਸਰਪਰ ਮਾਨੁ ॥੧॥** > Transitory attachments and evil hopes are false. Surely you must believe this! ||1|| > > *― Sri Guru Granth Sahib, Ang 1121* <br> Additionally, competition is not always a game of trying to defeat others. It is entirely possible to foster an environment of good sportsmanship and mutual benefit through competition. In fact, competition often results in highly effective forms of _cooperation_. These are not opposing ideals. Companies are organisations made up of individuals (literally, a company of individuals, hence why they are called a “company”) working together within a voluntary framework. The better these individuals can cooperate internally, the greater their collective chances of succeeding against other teams or organisations. Even the term “outcompete” can be misleading, as it implies that there must be a single “winner”. Take the example of choosing what phone to buy. You may have compared various models based on features, price, and design before settling on the one that best suited to your specific needs and wants. That product became your personal “winner”. But that doesn’t mean it was the best option for everyone else. Different people have different preferences. The objectivist writer and chairman of the Ayn Rand Institute, Yaron Brook, commonly uses the example of Apple and Samsung[^11]. While fierce competitors in the smartphone industry, the iPhone still uses several components manufactured by Samsung. Both parties benefit from  this, and so do their employees who receive a regular income as well as the consumers who receive the products. Without this collaboration, Apple would have had to build those components from scratch, driving up production costs thereby making it harder to offer the product at a competitive price, and reducing value for the consumer. Instead, competition between the two companies leads to constant innovation, and those innovations are often shared, refined, or adopted across the industry. The concept of *trade*, at its core, is a form of societal collaboration and cooperation. To illustrate this, Leonard Read, founder of the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE), wrote a short but legendary essay titled _“I, Pencil”_, in which he explored the sheer complexity involved in producing a seemingly simple object such as a pencil[^12]. This essay serves as a kind of meditation on decentralised cooperation. Its conclusion is both humbling and profound: no single person, on their own, can produce even one modern pencil from scratch. At first glance, the wooden casing might seem manageable to carve into shape. But what about the graphite? How would one obtain it, refine it, and insert it correctly? The metal band that holds the rubber is also the result of an extremely complex process, involving mining ore, refining metals, and creating the proper alloy. How would one do this without foundries or heavy machinery? The rubber must be sourced as well, likely from an entirely different part of the world you reading this in. In fact, most of the raw materials needed for the pencil come from different locations. One would need to factor in the cost and complexity of travel, transportation, and logistics. So many production processes would have to be mastered. Even if a person somehow possessed all the technical knowledge required to complete these steps, it would still cost millions to extract, process, and assemble the materials. And this is just for a single pencil. Imagine trying to produce another one that is identical. However, through *trade*, we are able to produce billions of these pencils every year. Each part of the process is handled by different groups of people across the world. Collectives of people, who associate in companies, organisations, and other forms of community. Countless individuals contribute, each specialising in a specific task or craft. In many cases, hundreds of people work together just to produce one element of a pencil. Yet no central planner oversees any of it. Every person in this system is simply acting in their own self-interest. The lumberjacks cut down the trees without knowing where the wood will go or how it will be used. That wood is processed by another group, equally unaware of its final destination. Each person is just trying to earn a living by doing their part. Even transporting the timber to the next stage is a complex undertaking. Who made the trucks? Who manufactured the rope to secure the load? Even the clothes the workers wear or the food that feeds them. These, too, involve vast networks of production, logistics, and trade. A central planner attempting to coordinate all of this would go insane! And yet, through this decentralised process, with each person focusing only on their own task, directly interacting with their own local community, an unimaginable number of pencils are produced and sold at a price that is just a fraction of the total cost. On top of this, competition streamlines this process even further. It encourages producers to become more efficient and to meet not only the demand for pencils, but for all the supporting products and services involved as they pursue greater profits. You cannot make everything yourself. Even the simplest things we take for granted are a result of worldwide collaboration between diverse groups of different religions, cultures and ethnicities. Through trade, people who would have otherwise killed each other now work together, whether knowingly or not. They share no centralised purpose, and no need for a planner to coordinate their efforts. Simply, if there is a demand, then their is an incentive to supply. Azadism therefore recognises trade and competition as a form of cooperation. A peaceful alternative to central planning, coercion, theft, or violence. It is an alternative to just killing and stealing what you want. It stands in direct contrast to the immorality of taxing authorities (Governments) who interfere in the everyday transactions of the people. Rather than taking what you want through violence or the threat of violence (like Government’s do with taxes), produce or offer something of value to others, whether that be a product, service, or you own labour, and in return others give you something of value to you. Trade enables people from all walks of life, across the globe, to collaborate voluntarily, whilst competition enables greater efficiency, and unlocks and maximises the vast potential of the human spirit. ## Regulations To most people, an unregulated free market may seem like a nightmare filled with exploitation and corruption. Regulations are often viewed as necessary to moderate the supposed “chaos” of the market and to compel people to behave in a desired way. In fact, a great deal of blame is placed on the Government for not regulating enough, especially in cases of so-called “market failures” in housing, pollution, banking, and other areas. As a result, regulations may appear to be the obvious solution to protect consumers. But let us examine one of these alleged market failures more closely[^13]. Housing has become increasingly unaffordable. Prices have risen sharply, while home ownership has declined, leaving many with fewer options. On the surface, this looks like a failure of the market, one that seems to justify Government intervention. However, we must first recall how prices are determined. When the supply of a good is limited but demand increases, prices rise. In today’s housing markets, supply has not kept pace with growing demand. But why is that? Government regulations actively restrict the ability to build new homes or repurpose existing ones. Builders must account for the added costs of regulatory compliance, whether related to materials, time, or bureaucratic delays. These costs are inevitably passed on to the buyer, as they are built into the final price of purchasing or renovating a home. Strict planning permissions and zoning laws further exacerbate the issue by preventing the construction of housing types suited to modern needs. In this way, supply is artificially suppressed and cannot respond freely to market demand[^14]. Under natural market conditions, a rise in demand would temporarily increase prices, but this would then also incentivise developers to build more homes. The higher prices would signal an opportunity for profit, attracting new entrants into the market. As supply increased, prices would gradually fall and stabilise. Eventually, as profitability decreased, supply would taper off, naturally rebalancing the market. However, this self-correcting process is hindered when Government regulations inhibit development and supply. With growing populations, demand continues to rise, while supply remains constrained, leading to sustained price inflation. If the State attempts to handle production manually, without the benefit of market price signals, inefficiencies arise. Building too many homes leads to wasteful surpluses, using up resources that could have been used elsewhere. Whereas building too few results in falling affordability and reducing options for homebuyers. Regulations in housing specifically tend to apply pressure in the latter direction, making it difficult for private actors to meet demand sufficiently, thereby increasing prices. At this point, some might propose price controls as a solution, where the Government sets housing prices rather than allowing supply and demand to determine them. But this too is a critical mistake. Economists almost universally agree that regulating prices causes either shortages or surpluses[^15]. If a price floor is set too high (relative to the natural market price), supply increases even though demand does not. This is because Governments tend to buy the surplus instead in many cases since and by doing so they have guaranteed an income for producers of the price fixed good. Which then naturally leads to overproduction and waste as suppliers accelerate outputs in order to achieve the guaranteed prices assured by the Government, but funded by the taxpayer. Conversely, if a price ceiling is set too low, suppliers have little incentive to produce, as they may be unable to cover costs or earn a viable profit. In such cases, where suppliers provide anyway, the products are often of lower quality, reflecting cost-cutting efforts. To highlight another example to show this in practice, cities and states around the world have historically experimented with “rent control” schemes to combat rising housing costs. These interventions consistently resulted in worse outcomes with affordability declining further, and housing quality deteriorating. In cases like New York city, rent controls were eased in over decades, so their harmful effects were not immediately obvious. However, over time both property prices and rent continued to rise to unprecedented levels, and not only for controlled properties. Even those properties outside the scheme saw prices rising even faster, since by taking more properties off the open market and into the scheme it reduced the overall supply relative to the still growing demand. Not only did this policy harm the affordability in general for everyone, but also harmed the very people it aimed to help. The tenants of these rent-controlled properties became effectively trapped, getting even more priced out of the open market and so increasingly unable to afford alternatives as prices surged around them. Their only options were then to stay in their current property and continue to pay below-market rates or leave entirely. Since landlords cannot raise profits as easily through adjusting rents either, they cut corners and kept quality at a minimum to save on costs. This was not because they were necessarily greedy, but often they were simply unable to raise enough income to outweigh their outgoings. Tenants were then left living in worse conditions than before. Neither could they realistically pressure the landlord to do anything about it since the waiting lists for these homes are so large they can be easily replaced by another tenant. In some places these lists have queued up to a level where people have to wait up to 20 years[^16]! So instead of this being seen as market failure, after drilling down into the details, this is actually one of many cases of government failure. First through stringent regulations in property development the supply was artificially restricted. Then, to fix this problem that they created, the Government tries to implement regulations on prices itself which further contributed to the shortages and led to lower quality housing for the poor as well as other social issues. Regulations caused the issue, and then they suggest more regulation will solve it. But then how do we manage harmful effects in the market? Many of these regulations must have been introduced for a reason, how do we protect the consumer? Take the case of builders doing the bare minimum, to the point that they cause structural instability and put people’s lives at risk. Under Azadism, several measures are in place to help prevent this. The first is the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP) itself, upon which all law is based. If a builder’s work causes a structure to collapse and results in damage to property or loss of life, they are liable for punishment. Under Azadism, this liability should be strict enough to create a strong disincentive for builders to cut corners in the first place. There is no need for State/public inspectors, since the builders themselves have a clear incentive to ensure safety in order to avoid legal repercussions. The second measure is market reputation. If a building company produces low-quality work or is responsible for a collapse, its reputation is tarnished. This directly affects its ability to generate future income, as few would trust and hire them again. These companies therefore have an inherent incentive to maintain high standards of quality and safety. This also applies to the builders themselves who are seeking employment in construction companies too. To preserve their personal reputation, and thus again their ability to gain future employment, they would naturally have an incentive to avoid work with or for companies that gain such poor reputations. This in turn means substandard companies are unable to continue operating since they can not find workers, thereby filtering them out of the market and freeing up resources for more reputable enterprises to take their place. This leads us on to a third measure: _private_ regulators. Azadism is not against all regulation, it is against the Government having a monopoly over conducting it. By privatising regulation, a market for trust emerges. Instead of a Government official acting as inspector, the private sector fosters many independent inspection bodies that compete to expose faults and verify quality. Now, the builders need to factor in a trust component as well when selling their services, and so would seek accreditation from one or more private regulators. The more inspections they pass, accreditations they acquire, the more credible their offering. Recognition by such regulators bolsters their reputation and offers customers a greater sense of trust when purchasing theses services[^17]. The incentive to cheat and bribe inspectors may be compelling for some of these builders, however this is a risky strategy for all involved. First, if an inspector refuses the bribe, it damages the builder’s standing and can doom their reputation when exposed. Second, if the inspector does accept and then is caught, their own reputation is ruined as a regulator, and then the market will adapt to avoid both parties. And the risk of being exposed grows exponentially, with many independent inspectors in operation where it requires only one of them to speak out and reveal misconduct. In fact, it is a golden opportunity for them to successfully expose others, since it would reflect greatly on their own ability to regulate honestly and effectively, thereby boost their own market reputation in the process. Contrast this with the Government where if a private regulator is caught taking bribes, it loses trust, collapses, and faces potential legal consequences. If a Government official is caught, the institution may simply fire the employee, but the same system that hired them continues to operate and be funded by the taxpayer regardless. Private regulators, whose income relies wholly on voluntary transactions and thus can be rescinded at any time, therefore, have a greater incentive to maintain trust and may develop innovative methods to demonstrate their reliability and integrity. This could include _private_ certifications, licences[^18], and other forms of market validation, all achieved without State interference. Instead, the State restricts its jurisdiction to only acting when the NAP is breached. Much of this already exists in the form of independent bodies and trade associations[^19]. However, simpler mechanisms of regulation, such as public reviews, should not be overlooked. With the rise of the internet and social media, platforms for sharing reviews of products and services are more accessible than ever. Consider restaurants for instance. A barrage of negative reviews can cripple a business. Owners invest significant effort into maintaining high standards to preserve their reputations. Restaurants reputed with poor hygiene, rude staff, or substandard food often do not tend to last very long. Moreover, reviews often reflect subjective preferences. It is not always just about identifying life or death risks. Different establishments cater to different audiences, diets and vibes. Reviews help communicate this diversity of options, helping consumers make more informed decisions to meet their own preferences. Therefore, customer feedback already plays a central role in consumer decision-making. From phones to clothing, nearly every product is accompanied by public opinions, whether that be on platforms like YouTube, Reddit, or even webpages offered by the suppliers of a good or service themselves. The role of customer reviews in a privately regulated system should neither be understated nor restricted[^20]. There may indeed be instances of “market failures”, but in the grand scheme of things, these are often rare, short-lived and concentrated in small areas. Most of the time, by doing nothing the self-regulating forces of the market resolves these itself. What tends to prevent this self-correction is when politicians exploit these failures to justify intervention, framing them as private sector shortcomings, even when it is often the Government as the root cause. In doing so, they demonise and abuse the term “private sector”, conjuring images of greedy businessmen to serve as the scapegoat for State failures. But, as we covered in earlier in this chapter, the *private sector* simply means individuals acting independently of the State. Farmers, entrepreneurs, charity workers, and even our own Gurus, all operated privately, independent from State control. In fact, the Gurus actively resisted such control, working to keep the public sector out of people’s lives, whether that be politically or spiritually[^21]. So when politicians blame the private sector, they are effectively saying the people are at fault, not them, and only the Government can save them. And the reason why this faulty rhetoric works so well is because regulations are often “sound-good” policies designed to win over voters. Economist and Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman expressed this clearly, urging us to focus on the actual effects of regulation, not just their names: “... we have to look at the actual consequences of policies, not at the names of them”[^22]. People often look at policy names rather than what they actually do, and this is what grants government greater and greater *power*. This is also reminiscent of the Cobra Effect story mentioned in the first section where policies enacted even with good intentions can lead to undesirable consequences when incentives are ignored. <br> > _“One of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs by their intentions rather than their results.”_ > > ― Mayagyani Sri Baba Milton Friedman Chicagowale <br> Whether this occurs through nefarious intent or merely through incompetence, the outcome is the same: the people suffer, and those responsible offer more suffering as a solution. To protect against either, ignorance must be dispelled and replaced with *knowledge*. The more influence the State gains, the more it erodes individual freedom until the bureaucracy becomes so bloated that former “private” actors infiltrate it and wield Government as a tool to serve their own interests. <br> ## Monopolies In economics, a monopoly is characterised as an organisation that has exclusive control over the supply of a particular good or service. Although there are very few examples of pure monopolies in practice, the term typically refers to corporations with large market shares. The primary concern with such entities is that they wield excessive power in setting prices for their products, and so nothing stops them from maximising profits at the expense of the consumer. As a result, the public is potentially worse off, paying significantly more than the natural market price. By its nature, a monopoly has few or no competitors. Therefore, the remedy to a concentrated market, where only a few organisations control the market share, is to make it easier for new firms to enter and compete. This may sound simple, but it is vital to emphasise that the real problem here is a lack of _competition_. If consumers have more choices, no single firm can hike up prices arbitrarily, as customers can simply go elsewhere. Or alternatively, start their own enterprises. This creates a powerful incentive for firms to offer the best possible prices and products, regardless of their current market share since it is easy to lose it. In a free market, the only way to maximise profits is by increasing efficiency (lowering costs), improving product quality (innovation), or finding more persuasive ways to convince consumers to choose your product over a competitor’s (marketing). Therefore, consumers are best protected from price manipulation and poor quality in a *competitive* market where many alternatives exist to choose from. Hence, in addressing monopolies, we must ask: what exactly is preventing competition in the market? What limits the range of available choices? Much of this can be traced to high barriers to entry, often created through Government intervention. These include measures discussed in the previous section and others, namely: regulations, licences, patents, and tariffs. At first glance, it may seem counter-intuitive that regulations empower large corporations. But this is a mistake. Regulations are often the very reason such corporations are able to dominate the market. Legislation backed by the coercive force of Government creates a hostile environment for smaller competitors. The ability to influence policy becomes a valuable resource, and so corporations actively seek to exploit this through a practice known as corporate political activity (CPA), particularly lobbying[^23]. This is where corporations are able to give money to the government in order to implement favourable policies or exemptions that benefits them and gives them an unfair advantage over their competition in the market. Smaller businesses and individual entrepreneurs are unable to do this as effectively, if at all, rendering them less competitive as a result. Instead of winning customers through merit, these large lobbying companies secure market dominance by obstructing competition through political influence[^24]. However, blame does not rest solely with corporations. Politicians, too, wield legislative threats to extract compliance. For example, Microsoft resisted utilising lobbying for years, until it ultimately became commercially unviable. The Government, using antitrust laws as a weapon[^25], began to accuse Microsoft of monopolistic behaviour and threatened it with crippling fines and even dissolution entirely. Acting similar to a protection racket run by Mafias, the government was giving them the choice to either pay-up or die. This inevitably led to Microsoft also engaging in these lobbying practices as a necessity upon which the line of fire was re-directed elsewhere to other companies[^26]. Today, Microsoft fully embraces corporate political activity and employs dedicated lobbying professionals[^27]. One must not be misled about who is using whom. At this level, the boundary between public and private sectors blur, as both sides benefit at the people’s expense. Permitting lobbying shifts the competition away from consumer preference towards Government favour. Small businesses cannot compete in this way, leaving large firms to engage in bidding wars to buy political influence and “pay-to-win” in the market. If they do not, their competitors will, or the Government will bully them into compliance with this corrupt game. The reality is that modern democracy can be bought and sold to the highest bidder whenever a State permits lobbying. Under Azadism, lobbying is equated with bribery and treated as a serious criminal offence. The profession of “corporate lobbyist” would be regarded as no different to the profession of thief. Corporate interests should not shape laws or regulations. It disintegrates the essential line between the private and public sectors. If a corporation dictates policy, it must be recognised they have thereby lost their “private” status. They utilise taxpayer money to advance their own interests, enforcing their will on others backed by the coercive powers of Government, either directly or indirectly. Through this, they engange in unfair, unfree market competition. Therefore CPA and lobbying are active hindrances to the competitive free-market principles Azadism is based upon. Such practices must be strictly prohibited in societies adopting Azadism, and clearly demarcated as illegal in the constitutional law if the society has a constitution. Whether it is the corporation influencing Government in this way, or vice versa, this relationship must be severed entirely. Violations should carry extreme penalties, as they the freedom of markets and ultimately harm the consumer. Due to the limited role of Government in an Azadist society, monopolies would find it far more difficult to emerge anyway. The Government simply would not have the ability to enact many of the polices aspiring monopolists desire in the first place. Without Government contracts, special licences, or regulations to exploit, all firms, large or small, would have to compete under equal market conditions, in the same fair and free market as everyone else. If any one enterprise or entrepreneur cannot provide a good or a service at a desirable enough price or quality (as determined by the people, not the Government), then they will lose and those that can will win. The reason many of today’s largest corporations endure is their entanglement with the State[^28]. In a truly free and fair market, the only path to a large market shares is to offer the people a better product and price than your rivals. Given that value is subjective and dependent on individual preferences and circumstances, it is exceptionally difficult for a single entity to become the sole provider of a particular good or service. There are many factors that go into determining the subjective value decisions each individual makes for themselves, which may go far beyond just the price of a product. Considerations are made to how a product is made, the distance to it, quality of customer service, the ethos of the company, who the provider is and their reputation, or even the consumer’s mood at the time. In a highly competitive environment, where anyone can start a business, or enter the market, the constant stream of competition makes it difficult for monopolies to sustain, let alone emerge. It is this open competition, not State regulation, that best protects consumers. Especially not those regulations that can be easily bypassed with enough money or those that corporations themselves create. Any regulations that do exist should be private, not public. That said, there a few rare instances in which something called “natural” monopolies can still arise under these conditions. These are not inherently undesirable. For example: 1. **New inventions**: A company that creates a new product will naturally enjoy a monopoly over it. When Apple released the first iPhone, it effectively had a monopoly. But seeing and being motivated by the profits, competitors like Samsung soon entered the market after developing their own offerings. Intense competition has since led to a boom in innovation in this sector, as well as the number of competitors which naturally means increased consumer choices, affordability and accessibility. 2. **Exceptional enterprise**: Though unlikely, a business may achieve such efficiency that it provides the best quality and price using the same resources as its competitors. If consumers continue to buy voluntarily, this is not necessarily harmful. Should the firm raise prices unfairly, competitors are free to re-enter the market and restore alternatives, provided that market entry is unrestricted. 3. **Geographic or situational monopoly**: In some cases, a single company may be the only provider simply because no one else has entered that specific market yet. This could be due to geographic isolation, low initial demand, or the novelty of the opportunity (similarly to the first type). For example, a firm may be the sole internet provider in a remote region, or the only business offering a niche service in a newly developed area. However, so long as market entry remains unrestricted, such monopolies are temporary. The moment profitability becomes apparent, other providers are incentivised to enter and compete. As with the previous cases, competition will naturally emerge to challenge any one firm’s dominance especially if the incumbent begins to exploit its position. <br> Another common argument related to this topic is “predatory pricing”. This is the idea that when firms get large enough, they undercut competitors at a loss until their rivals exit the market. However, economist Thomas Sowell has argued that such strategy is deeply flawed. To recoup the losses, the predator must eventually raise prices, at which point new competitors return. Moreover, if the competitors are bankrupted, their assets such as equipment, workers, infrastructure, etc. do not suddenly "pop out" of existence. Instead, these are usually sold or hired often at a discounted rate, and so aspiring entrepreneurs would be ready to take on this opportunity to compete. Lastly, if the tactic fails and competitors survive, the predatory firm is left with major losses. Such risks make it unlikely for firms to attempt these practices in the first place, especially when market entry is free and fair. What occurs more often are “price wars”, where firms lower prices to outcompete each other, meanwhile benefiting the consumer as they get cheaper goods and services[^29]. In conclusion, there are very few, if any, truly private monopolies. What we find instead are varying degrees and methods of State involvement in the dominance of large market share organisations. It must be made absolutely clear that privatisation, the process of making an activity a private sector enterprise, is not politicians passing on Government contracts to their friends. True privatisation is the antithesis of political cronyism. True privatisation under Azadism entails the full separation of private and public sectors, focused solely on serving the consumer. I.e. winning the people’s favour, not the politician’s. Many industries of modern economies suffer from this sort of collusion between the State and so-called “private” actors. Lastly, those advocating for nationalisation, the process of turning private enterprises into public ones, are effectively promoting the creation of State-backed monopolies directly. In the next two parts of this section, two major examples of such monopolies will be examined in detail. <br> ## Healthcare One of the most important examples of State-backed monopolies is nationalised healthcare. At first glance, private healthcare may feel like a worse deal compared to public systems like the National Health Service (NHS) in the United Kingdom. Some would argue: why replace a “free” system with a paid one? But as alluded to previously, there is no such thing as a “free” Government service. These are funded through taxes levied on the population. While there is a moral concern with forcing people to pay for others’ healthcare, just as there would be for any forced compulsion when it comes to giving to charity, there is also a serious economic issue with having the State manage healthcare. Nationalised healthcare is a monopoly by definition, only in this case, the Government is the monopolist, not a private entity. As we covered in the previous section, by its very nature, a monopoly opposes competition. Consequently, there is little incentive to innovate or provide the highest possible quality of service when there is no threat of or from competitors. With income guaranteed via taxation (or money printing), a public healthcare system is paid for regardless of its performance. Without a profit incentive nor competition, market forces cannot drive down prices or encourage the improvement in quality. Innovation and efficiency suffer in the absence of alternatives that would otherwise arise in a fair and free market where shortcomings in one service become opportunities for others to improve on with their own offerings. Instead, inefficiencies are allowed to persist, mismanagement of resources fester and failures are routinely blamed on a “lack of funding”. But what use is more money when existing resources are already being misused or squandered? Simply throwing more money at a problem does necessarily not fix it. Whereas, in a market environment in which healthcare providers must compete to provide the best quality service at the lowest possible price, those organisations that underperform are replaced by those that do. Only in a competitive market for healthcare is the wastage of resources best avoided and the potential for innovation best maximised. Which is the same principle applied to all other industries. Healthcare should be no exception, especially considering the longer lifespans of people, the potential for the emergence of deadlier viruses and new diseases. The societal need for the healthcare sector to be constantly innovating to stay ahead these issues is paramount. Nothing fosters innovation more than the incentive structures present in a competitive, free and fair market. Moreover, it is in the people’s best interest to choose between multiple alternatives. For instance, if one healthcare provider persistently fails to provide a quality service, and is plagued by substandard doctors, racist nurses and long wait times, it is unlikely to persist for very long as people would generally avoid risking their health with such a low quality provider given they had ample alternatives to turn to. Also, no two patients have the exact same needs. A system that fosters a diversity of options, where specialist practices can emerge to cater to specific issues would be far more desirable. This competitive environment may radically transform how healthcare is delivered in general, with new approaches to diagnosis, treatment, and care. When anyone is free to enter the market, provided the justice system is up to scratch and provides the necessary deterrents to bad actors, patients benefit from greater choice, and providers are incentivised to solve problems creatively. It is then up to the market to determine what works. In India, entrepreneurs are already transforming healthcare by reducing costs and improving access for the poorest. One example is *Glocal Healthcare*, who are leveraging new technology and critically re-evaluating how primary and secondary care functions should be handled. By setting up small, decentralised units in rural areas, the company offers key services such as check-ups and a digital pharmacy. Tasks that would otherwise require long travel to city hospitals and specialist doctors. Instead, these rural units deliver equivalent primary care at a fraction of the cost and relieve pressure on urban hospitals by freeing up doctors’ time. Patients in rural areas now enjoy easier, cheaper access to care including video consultations with specialists who may live far away. Contrast this with the NHS in the UK, notorious for long waiting times, bed shortages, and general inefficiency[^30]. It is clear to see how removing competition here drastically reduces its quality and capacity to innovate[^31]. The US system should not be seen as the ideal alternative either. The reality is that the US government actually spends more on their supposed “private” healthcare system than the UK does, calling into question its private status entirely[^32]. The obscene costs of American healthcare can also be traced to Government intervention, albeit less directly. For example, one of the reasons why medicines are so expensive is due to the *patents* system. This is Government-granted monopoly scheme that prevents other firms from producing the same drug for a fixed period of time. Thereby allowing the patent-holder to be the sole provider, eliminating any pricing pressure[^33]. Another major factor is the barrier to entry created by complex healthcare regulations, which discourages and makes it difficult for new firms to enter the market and offer alternatives[^34]. While it is important for medicines to undergo rigorous safety testing, it is not so essential that the Government needs to oversee this process. In fact, it may even be undesirable, given the Government’s poor track record in “protecting” its citizens[^35]. Azadism offers an alternative — _private_ regulators, as mentioned previously. These independent bodies would review and certify drugs according to their own standards and independent testing. Their incentive to be truthful is much stronger, since their income and reputation depend on public trust. If they do not provide accurate assessments, they will quickly lose trust and therefore unable to continue as regulators. Pharmaceutical companies, in turn, would be motivated to seek approval from not just one organisation (like the Government), but multiple respected regulators to build credibility and market appeal. The more reputable regulators it secures accreditation from, the more attractive their drug shall be. This system reduces reliance on a single monopoly reviewer (the Government), and instead builds a far more robust market for trust with an active incentive to expose dangers and promote quality. Under Azadism it is also likely we would see an insurance-based approach to healthcare. The people themselves would have to take the responsibility to purchase health or life insurance. Not only is this prudent financial planning (especially for younger people[^36]) but it also maintains the freedom of choice, as well as allowing for competition to flourish in both the healthcare and insurance industries. This could also manifest in specialist packages that cover a variety of insurance options, such as whole family packages, or even workplaces offering plans as an incentive to attract employment. With market forces free to operate, prices would decrease and quality would improve, so long as the Government refrains from distorting the sector like it often does now. For those still unable to afford insurance on current wages, there are alternatives, to be discussed in the chapter on social security. Additionally, there is also nothing wrong with a town or community collectively deciding to finance an all-encompassing healthcare system either, given that all funds are raised as donations and not taxes. This way they can maintain a “free” service that is actually free because donations are a choice, whereas taxes are not.  As long as people have the ability to choose and are not coerced in any way, the voluntary nature of this particular solution is more than acceptable under an Azadist system. All those who do not want to participate are free not to, and it is up to that particular healthcare provider to determine whether they will still offer assistance to them or not. This is in contrast to the current system in the UK where you have to pay “National Insurance” regardless, and if you refuse you are kidnapped and thrown into a cage. The Government should have no need to be involved in any of these voluntary transactions, and by stepping back and allowing the market for healthcare to thrive, the people themselves will increase affordability, availability and quality through natural market forces. All the Government needs to do is step out of their way. <br> ## Education Education for adults is another sector that should be constantly improving and innovating, and therefore competitive markets here are also strongly encouraged. However, when it comes to children, this industry may require some deviation from the free-market principles that underpin Azadism. So far, individual choice and autonomy has taken the utmost priority in Azadism, allowing people to decide for themselves how best to live their own lives and spend their own money. Yet this sovereignty over action can only apply to adults above an agreed age threshold (I suggest no younger than eighteen). In general, children are not mentally developed enough to make autonomous decisions without parental support. A child cannot rationally consent to market interactions, simply because they lack the cognitive capacity to make informed decisions[^37]. Under Azadism, this diminished capacity means that children cannot enjoy the same rights of self-governance or fully exist within a NAP framework until they reach the defined age for adulthood. Otherwise, parenthood would become legally unworkable, as managing a child’s needs would routinely violate the NAP. How else could a mother feed her newborn? Would she need to first seek consent and ask her baby to sign contract? As children grow, they require guidance and discipline. Granting them full NAP-based rights at too young an age would make enforcement impractical, if not impossible in some cases. Until a child matures to a competent age, their absolute freedom is deferred. In exchange for this deferral of NAP rights, Azadism grants children the right to education[^38]. Not merely the right to access it, but the guarantee that it will be provided. This responsibility falls to the parents as a matter of legal duty under threat of prosecution. One could view this humorously as a form of “compensation” to the child, who was brought into this world without their consent. Since, the parents who chose to bring them here, they are now obliged to offer a kind of “guest privilege”, ensuring the child is adequately accommodated (via education). This obligation lasts right up and till the child reaches adulthood, at which point the child’s rights are swapped back; they can now enjoy freedom protected by the NAP, but no longer the State-mandated right or privilege to education. What we typically refer to as “higher education” then becomes something they themselves, as adults, can choose to pursue on their own accord. Therefore, it is the parent's duty, or *Dharam*, to give their child the best possible opportunity to reach a stage where they are able to make their own sovereign decisions. As part of this, the following fields are suggested as a bare minimum for child education: 1. Mathematics 2. Language 3. Physical education (sports) By grounding children in these fundamental fields of education, they are best able to then achieve the level of competency required to function freely and responsibly under the NAP. The second reason as to why every child must attend a school is for their safeguarding. Azadism considers every child to be the shared “property” of both the parent and the community until adulthood. This is not to commodify the child, but to express the idea of responsibility. When we say a child “belongs” to their parents, we are already using the language of property, though clearly not in the tradable, commercial sense[^39]. This framing allows the NAP to be applied in the sense that if any child is harmed, it is as if the *property* of the entire community has been harmed. This then provides clearer justification for legal intervention in such circumstances and therefore still ensures NAP-based protections for children, even if they as individuals do not yet have the right themselves. In cases of parental neglect or abuse, the parent half of the societal, “shared-ownership” contract is transferred to another set of guardians, in a similar way to how ownership of valuable assets are confiscated from criminals and granted to new owners. To “own” is to be responsible for something. Again, this usage of the term is limited, since “ownership” over a child, is not the same kind of ownership for other types of property. You may be aware of the saying “if you cannot destroy something, you do not truly own it”, which is in large part true, however, since a child is the shared responsibility of the entire community, unless you get a hundred percent consensus from everyone, no one individual has the right to make such destructive decisions when it comes to children. That is at least from a legal perspective, in reality, general morality and ethics do a lot of heavy lifting despite this in justifying why children should not be abused. Anyone in a society who does not seem to have these ethics must be rooted out and destroyed. A school, then, serves not just as a centre for learning but also as a safe space. A child cannot realistically defend themselves from their own parents (whether through neglect or ill intent) and so in order to prevent harm to the child, attendance at a school must be necessary. This allows every child to have access to adults beyond just their own parents. Teachers are a crucial role in any society, and this no different in an Azadist one. They will have a dual role in both educating and ensuring the well-being of every child they teach. If abuse is suspected, the school has a legal duty to report this to the appropriate authority. Schools that ignore signs of harm are legally liable, as they have failed to protect what is partially the community’s charge. Economically, this makes sense too since a school that turns a blind eye to abuse damages its market reputation that all schools would have an incentive to maintain. If it is found out that a school not able to protect its students from harm, market will respond accordingly as parents move their children elsewhere. In purely economic terms, ignoring abuse is bad business. Additionally, none of this requires any sort of public schools. The only factors preventing this sector from being defined as truly private are the necessary laws set by the state to safeguard children and the minimum subject requirement. Beyond this, parents have the freedom to negotiate or find schools that offer curriculums that align with their own values, beliefs, and educational goals. To further enhance competition under current systems, economist Milton Friedman popularised the school voucher model. Instead of funding public schools, the Government provides vouchers to parents, allowing them to pay for schools of their choice. Friedman argued that if public schools truly offered a good service, they would have nothing to fear from competition. And if they didn’t, why should anyone defend their continued existence[^40]? Again, competition will allow those schools who best satisfy the demand of the people to prosper, and eliminate substandard schools which has been so damaging to so many, especially minority communities in the US and UK such as the Black community[^41]. It is worth noting that Friedman still recognised a voucher system as only a *step* towards a fully free-market solution to education[^42]. Similarly, since Azadism is not a static philosophy but a gradualist one, it too agrees with this and poses that any voucher system should be part of a trend towards decentralisation and an eventual elimination of government micromanagement in this sector altogether. Although, such a voucher programme may be a transitional policy for a State attempting to implement Azadism, eventually even this should be abandoned to mitigate risks related to government overreach, corruption and the involuntary funding of a service through taxes. However, this does not mean the poor have to miss out. As will be expanded upon in a later section, the application of a form of universal basic income for low earners can act as an alternative to vouchers as another step towards the ultimate goal of an *Azaad* society. Furthermore, private schooling also helps mitigate one of the major risks involved with state education — _propaganda_. Private schools are generally less susceptible to State ideology and fervent nationalist indoctrination, as seen in authoritarian regimes like North Korea[^43]. An Azadist Government has no place in determining what it feels that a free people should or should not know, and especially _how_ they know it[^44]. This also helps reduce the power of States performing cultural genocide on minorities through removing their power to set certain language requirements or teach a particular version of historical events at the expense of other perspectives. Instead, it is down to the *private sector*, the people themselves, to determine what they want for themselves or their children to learn (in addition to the basic requirements above). Countless times do we hear anecdotes from people claiming they wished “they” taught us this or that in school. In a private system, curriculums are set by parents (or students) and teachers communicating with each other directly, or even indirectly through price signalling. Just like any other private enterprise must adapt to meet consumer demand, private schools must also adapt to meet their client’s demands. If they cannot, then their clients have the freedom to choose another school. The exact same way how if one business cannot provide a service at a satisfactory enough quality or affordability, whereas another can, then customers have the freedom to exit. Taking the State out of these negotiations, that should be happening solely between private actors, enables this freedom and vastly mitigates the risk of State propaganda. The State should have no role in restricting ideas or history, and all subjects should be available for study as provided by the private sector. Market forces of supply and demand will be the governing factor in what is taught (provided there is no violation of the NAP). For example, as society advances, the demand for the development of infrastructure increases. In turn, companies start to increase their demand for engineers compared to a now relatively low supply. Since the competition for this restricted talent pool rises, the salaries engineers can negotiate for also rise. Upon observing this, more people develop an incentive to pursue such careers, and so therefore this increases the demand for the relevant education. Schools experiencing this demand, start to make more courses available to satisfy the influx of students for the relevant topics, incentivised by the higher revenues they would be able to generate by providing more of this education. The effect is cascading. Over time, more schools are set up to provide this valuable education, so to get a share of the profits and thus compete with each other on quality and price (bringing the market rate down). Additionally, as the availability of engineering education increases, so does the supply of qualified engineers. As the supply of engineers rises to meet the demand, the skill shortage is resolved and eventually the above normal salaries (which are a price) stabilise and reduce back to a normal rate as the market reaches a new equilibrium. Lastly, this then signals throughout the economy that engineering is no longer as in demand as before. The market adjusts as required to account for this, reducing waste and re-allocating resources elsewhere. There is no need for a central planner to manually arrange any of this. The natural forces of supply and demand handle it. Azadism respects and accepts the *Hukam* present in markets. --- > **ਹੁਕਮੈ ਅੰਦਰਿ ਸਭੁ ਕੋ ਬਾਹਰਿ ਹੁਕਮ ਨ ਕੋਇ ॥**  > > Everyone is subject to _Hukam_; no one operates outside of _Hukam_. > > **ਨਾਨਕ ਹੁਕਮੈ ਜੇ ਬੁਝੈ ਤ ਹਉਮੈ ਕਹੈ ਨ ਕੋਇ ॥੨॥**  > > O Nanak, one who his enlightened about _Hukam_, does not speak in _Haumai_ (a sense of separate self, distinct from reality, fooling themselveves into thinking they are not in it or of it) ||2|| > > _―_ _Sri Jap Ji Sahib_ --- When it comes to exact methods of providing education, since the market is free to provide it in a variety of formats, they will naturally compete, and therefore innovate, to create the best possible way of disseminating knowledge over time through trial and error. There is no law that restricts proof of education to have to be in the form of diplomas or degrees in the traditional sense either. Instead it could be different types of certifications altogether. Companies themselves can establish assessments that potential employees must pass, and so specific courses could be designed to concentrate on these rather than having students study topics not relevant to them but mandated by the State. This already happens to an extent amongst large firms who test candidates as part of their application processes. This moves society away from one which encourages simply acquiring pieces of paper saying you spent a few years in a university and passed poorly moderated examinations, to one that values the actual skills and knowledge you acquired. Giving the education sector a profit incentive means that it has to focus on results, otherwise why would anyone go to a school with poor performance and low rates of employment for its students[^45]? If no students go there then it simply cannot continue to exist as it cannot cover its costs. Instead, the end goal of creating a well-educated, employable and highly skilled student will take precedence. A State funded school has no similar level of motivation, since they are paid for regardless of performance. In fact, those with worse than average performance may be applicable for *more* State funding, which completely reverses the incentive. Rewarding bad outcomes perpetuates bad outcomes. Another potential system that is free to (re-)emerge, provided there is sufficient demand for it, is the *Gurukul* system of ancient India. In this model, students went to live with a *Guru* and become their disciple (Shishya). They were primarily aimed at teaching scriptural knowledge but would have covered other lifestyle aspects such as arts and music depending on the *Gurdev*[^46]. This may be a great way to bring up children who were neglected especially, and give them an opportunity to learn about a variety of aspects of life, and not just the academics. ‍A final topic to cover is universities. Although on the surface they may appear to be private institutions, in places like the US and UK, participation in them are indirectly funded by the State. The Government provides guaranteed loans to students who then enrol on degrees with the hope that they earn high enough salaries post-education that will pay will pay off the debt. However, due to this, universities realise that they will receive a guaranteed income regardless of their performance. This is the exact same danger that threatens innovation, quality service and natural prices as with any State backed industry. Universities do not have an incentive to compete with each other on lower prices and better service, since they know they will get paid anyway. This is a key reason why university education is so expensive, and rising. Universities know they will be paid, the Government assures it with the taxpayer’s money. Therefore, they inflate their fees, further leaving taxpayers to cover the shortfall when students can’t repay their loans. In the UK, most students never repay the full amount[^47], and the unpaid debt becomes a burden on the public. Meanwhile, students are stuck with decades of debt. Alongside this, there has been a societal push over the decades to get more people to attend universities and subject to this scam[^48]. Taking market forces out of the equation have left many young students starting their lives with tens of thousands in debt and degrees that may not be in demand in the job market. Governments producing these loans may or may not have had good intentions for doing so, but the outcome is a disaster. University students themselves will highlight the struggles in finding work after graduating, even with in demand degrees. Since almost anybody can get these degrees, there is nothing special about having them anymore, meaning that students need to gain even more qualifications on top to be able to compete for jobs[^49]. Additionally, companies often ask for work experience specifically which further shows that having a degree in many cases is simply not enough. Apprenticeships are designed for this very reason, as they provide on the job experience and instead of accumulating debt, you are paid a wage. Originally, pursuing a university education was a personal investment of time and money that was not pushed on to everyone to achieve, the risk was on you. It was a personal sacrifice taken on by individuals and not paid for by society as a whole with taxes. Similar to healthcare, universities should not be another “forced charity” for people and should be accessed just like any other private enterprise. Universities should be exposed to a market, where the price they can charge is determined by the quality of their service, and therefore the demand for them. By becoming a truly private industry, universities will have to compete in a fair and free market, thereby leading to higher general quality over time, innovation and natural market prices for their education. By doing so, students would be in a much stronger position financially and thus could realistically work part-time to help pay off any debts they may incur. Alternatively, there may be many other options to the university system in general, like apprenticeships mentioned earlier, or new innovative methods we a society are yet to come up with. Similarly to the previous section, if people still desire a free education system for members of their community, nothing is stopping them from pooling their money together to fund the education of their members. As long as it is done voluntarily, through donations and not taxes, it is perfectly acceptable under an Azadist system. ‍To summarise, an Azadist education system is a private one and is free from State manipulation. The only exception is the legal requirements which mandates all children have to attend a school and be provided education in the minimum required subjects. Giving the people the choice is paramount in creating an effective education system under Azadism, however it must also be balanced with the correct safeguarding for children which can be guaranteed through a mandatory schooling law in the beginning. Despite this, education providers must compete like any other industry. In the process, this will create better quality services and increased affordability for all. One way to encourage this at the start of a transition into an Azadist society from an existing system may be in the forms of offering school vouchers to parents, but preferentially, a form of basic income. The central government should not set any curriculum beyond the basic requirements for children. Even with this, this responsibility can be gradually devolved to local levels to further de-risk and decentralise power over time. --- ## Other Useful Resrouces **Link: [Regulations Improve the Free Market? - Foundation for Economic Education (fee.org)](https://fee.org/articles/regulations-improve-the-free-market/)** **Link: [Why Government is the Problem Milton Friedman 1993 (hoover.org)](https://www.hoover.org/sites/default/files/uploads/documents/friedman-government-problem-1993.pdf)** **Link: [Why We Need To Re-think Friedman’s Ideas About Monopolies (promarket.org)](https://promarket.org/2021/04/25/milton-friedman-monopoly-self-interest/)** **Link: [Antitrust Policy Is Both Harmful and Useless | Mises Institute](https://mises.org/library/antitrust-policy-both-harmful-and-useless)** **Link: [Positive and Negative Liberty (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberty-positive-negative/)** --- ## Footnotes [^1]: Oxford Dictionary Definition of *Private Enterprise*: “business or industry that is managed by independent companies or private individuals rather than being controlled by the [S]tate.” [^2]: In fact, even the Oxford dictionary definition leaves room for some ambiguity by introducing the word “direct” in their definition of the *Private Sector*. Azadism pushes this further and explicitly states that any sort of State control, whether direct or indirect, thereby invalidates any organisation’s status as a “private” entity. This better matches with the definition included in the Oxford Dictionary Of Economics and common usage of this term I have come across listening to Economists. [^3]: A note on the incident regarding the Masands being turned into *pakore*. This was justified on the Guru’s behalf since the Masands were not only refusing to comply with the Guru’s orders to readdress the donations made by the Sangat (meant for the Guru, the Masands just collected on his behalf) to the Khalsa, but also burnt a Saroop of the Sri Guru Granth Sahib, and conspired to depose him. Thereby, the Guru dealt with them as people who break the NAP and steal the private property of others. A more detailed account is available in Rattan Singh’s *Prachin Panth Prakash* (who in turn refers to Gur Bilas for even more detail). [^4]: However, I do recognise the role of Hukam in decision making (or lack thereof). As stated in the introduction though, for the purpose of this manifesto I simply have to assume free-will and personal agency for the sake of practicality and operating within the illusion of dualistic reality. At a certain level in this topic specifically, there will be an inability to talk about any of these concepts otherwise. [^5]: This is a simplistic breakdown in order to highlight the key points. However, sometimes it may be okay that temporarily a particular venture incurs a loss in the short term. This is most often the case with new businesses that may have paid large fixed costs to begin with. However, by examining their cash flow statements or other factors, you can reveal a more accurate reason as to why a business may not be generating profit. However, in the long term, breaking even or making a profit would be needed. Even charities must generate a profit by ensuring their donations (income) exceed their costs. [^6]: **Link: [Gurdwara Sri Mal Akhara Sahib | Historical Gurdwara Tours - YouTube](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tXbgyyGZrY)** [^7]: “33 Strategies or War” by Robert Greene [^8]: **Link: [The Art of War by Sun Tzu - Chapter 11: The Nine Situations (suntzusaid.com)](https://suntzusaid.com/book/11)** This website is good resource for reading this text due to the added commentary [^9]: Or at the very least more than otherwise. In fact, even this Manifesto would not have been written without employing elements of this strategy to help motivate and remain disciplined in this endeavour. [^10]: **Link: [Rasna Raam Raam Bakhaan - by Dhrupadhamar - BoS 5 Year Anniversary - YouTube](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4aCYT6oSDs)** [^11]: **Link: [The Philosophy And Principles of Capitalism with Yaron Brook (thewealthstandard.com)](https://thewealthstandard.com/the-philosophy-and-principles-of-capitalism-with-yaron-brook/)** [^12]: The original essay is available here: **Link: [I, Pencil by Leonard E. Read - Foundation for Economic Education (fee.org)](https://fee.org/resources/i-pencil-audio-pdf-and-html)** Chicago School economist and Nobel Laureate, Milton Friedman, also talks through this example briefly here: **Link: [Milton Friedman - I, Pencil - YouTube](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67tHtpac5ws)** Relevant point: **Link: [Carl Sagan's apple pie - YouTube](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BkHCO8f2TWs)** [^13]: Failures in pollution control and climate change are important topics that will be discussed outside this publication, but for the curious please look into the concept of the “Tragedy of the Commons”. Maintaining property rights are an important component of an Azadist economy but discussion of this goes outside of the scope of this Manifesto. The 2008 Financial crisis is another one of these topics that go outside of the scope of this manifesto too. Explaining this example is too detailed for here, and so may either be discussed elsewhere alongside interest rates, inflation, banking, investing and monetary policy as its own publication. The reader is therefore encouraged to research Peter Schiff’s explanation of the topic, someone who predicted and warned everyone long before it happened. His book *Crash Proof* looks at this subject in detail, but you can also refer to his 2007 Google Talk here (in short, this was Government’s fault too, unsurprisingly): **Link: [Crash Proof | Peter Schiff | Talks at Google - YouTube](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tU8jCa_dKTM)** Also related and worth the watch is his debates at the Occupy Wall Street protests after the 2008 crash, in which he combats some of the common misconceptions around the situation. **Link: [Peter Schiff at Occupy Wall Street "I am the 1%. Let's Talk"](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RY0R0NpIdQQ)** [^14]: **Link: [How Government Regulations Make Housing Unaffordable | Mises Wire](https://mises.org/wire/how-government-regulations-make-housing-unaffordable)** [^15]: **Link: [Price Controls - Econlib](https://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/PriceControls.html)** [^16]: **Link: [Rent Control Does Not Make Housing More Affordable | Manhattan Institute (manhattan-institute.org)](https://www.manhattan-institute.org/issues-2020-rent-control-does-not-make-housing-more-affordable)** [^17]: This already exists currently too. Builders themselves recommend private inspectors to check the work over the local councils ones (in the UK) since the latter are often so late in responding, which halts the work as they can not progress without a pass from the inspector. Therefore private ones are preferred since it helps keep building projects on schedule. [^18]: Government-mandated licences are another headache of State intervention. Esteemed economist Walter E Williams has a great example of taxi licences that was too lengthy to include here, and the housing regulations already acted as the relevant example for this topic. Nonetheless, the reader is highly encouraged to hear Walters Williams’ argument on this topic: **Link: ["Good Intentions" with Walter E. Williams - YouTube](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5TS8QUJWXo)** [^19]: **Link: [Private Regulation: A Real Alternative for Regulatory Reform (cato.org)](https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa-303.pdf)** [^20]: What about people lying? Companies would likely find ways around this to help build confidence and trust with their consumers. Even now, a lot of the applications on the Google Play Store have the developers respond directly to problems openly so that everyone can see, showing they are happy to support or find a solution. Other methods could be similar to what Amazon does by giving a verified purchase tag. And lastly, other customers of that product themselves can refute the baseless claims. [^21]: One famous example is Sri Guru Tegh Bahadur sacrificing his own life, alongside his companions Bhai Dayal Das, Bhai Mati Das and Bhai Sati Das, to resist the state from enforcing its religion on private individuals (the Kashmiri Pandits in this case). The freedom of religion is paramount in ensuring a free society, and when the state regulates even this most basic of rights, it is nothing but a sign of tyranny. [^22]: **Link: [Milton Friedman - Equality and Freedom (Q&A) Debunking Social Justice Theory - YouTube](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_mGlqyW_Zw&list=PLOv-GldVeFiXd1exZU0QLYC6ynwkQwbvz&index=35)** [^23]: **Link: [Mixing Business With Politics: A Meta-Analysis of the Antecedents and Outcomes of Corporate Political Activity](https://master-cca.cnam.fr/html/ms/cca/articles/article4-4.pdf)** [^24]: **Link:  [The Failure of Free Entry (nber.org)](https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w26001/w26001.pdf)** [^25]: Although antitrust laws were designed specifically to combat monopolies, their actual effect was to create a system of extortion. These regulations are used as a weapon by the Government to threaten successful companies and fill the pockets of politicians. **Link:  [Anti-Trust Law and Lawlessness, by Dr. Thomas Sowell | Creators Syndicate](https://www.azadism.co.uk/notes#)** **Link:  [Do Antitrust Laws Preserve Competition? | Mises Institute](https://mises.org/library/do-antitrust-laws-preserve-competition)** **Link:  [Policy Forum: "Milton Friedman on business suicide" | Cato Institute](https://www.cato.org/policy-report/march/april-1999/policy-forum-milton-friedman-business-suicide)** [^26]: **Link:  [How Microsoft learned ABCs of D.C. - POLITICO](https://www.politico.com/story/2011/04/how-microsoft-learned-abcs-of-dc-052483)** [^27]: **Link: [Microsoft Corp Lobbyists • OpenSecrets](https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/clients/lobbyists?cycle=2019&id=D000000115)** [^28]: In fact, it’s very difficult to become that large in the first place without Government assistance. In principle, larger firms inevitably become increasingly inefficient due to their inability to accurately calculate prices internally. **Link: [Is There a Limit to How Big a Corporation Can Get? | Mises Wire](https://mises.org/wire/there-limit-how-big-corporation-can-get)** **Link: [Why the Economy Isn't Controlled by One Big Corporation | Mises Wire](https://mises.org/wire/why-economy-isnt-controlled-one-big-corporation)** **Link: [Per Bylund on the Economics of Value versus Economies of Scale | Mises Institute](https://mises.org/library/bylund-economics-value-versus-economies-scale)** [^29]: **Link: [Predatory prosecution (forbes.com)](https://www.forbes.com/forbes/1999/0503/6309089a.html?sh=6d014480206f)** [^30]: For example: **Link: [Operating room inefficiencies costing the NHS 300,000 operations a year (nationalhealthexecutive.com)](https://www.nationalhealthexecutive.com/Health-Care-News/operating-room-inefficiencies-costing-the-nhs-300000-operations-a-year)** The following shows further the extent of the problem. Whilst Azadism would disagree with the proposed solution of more investment (i.e throw more money at it), it is a useful report nonetheless to show how inefficient public sector industries become due to various restrictions and regulations that lead to shortages such as these. **Link: [Medical staffing in the NHS in England report (bma.org.uk)](https://www.bma.org.uk/advice-and-support/nhs-delivery-and-workforce/workforce/medical-staffing-in-england-report)** [^31]: However, staunch defenders of this system would still stress the cultural importance of the NHS, arguing that is has (undeniably) been seeped into the hearts and minds of the British public. Azadism sees this as no different from forcibly maintaining the British royal family, similarly through taxes. If people want to voluntarily pay for these “cultural” enterprises, they should pay for it themselves, and all those who don’t should be free to opt-out. This forces the NHS to stay competitive as its income is now based on its ability to meet the needs of its "customers", and not on the State stealing peoples money to force them to pay for it. This would also give room for other competitors to come into the space and introduce necessary improvements. [^32]: **Link: [How does health spending in the U.S. compare to other countries? - Peterson-KFF Health System Tracker](https://www.azadism.co.uk/notes#)** [^33]: **Link: [Are Patents Impeding Medical Care and Innovation? (nih.gov)](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2795161/)** Whilst the above admits that patents do indeed increase costs and restrict innovation, they do not suggest doing away with this system entirely. Further debate and research on this are needed in which we can compare reforming patents with alternatives such as the prize system mentioned in the article. However, from an Azadist perspective, any State-backed mandates protecting specific organisations over others is inherently wrong and counter-productive. [^34]: For more information on how the US Healthcare system works, please consult the following: **Link: [A layman's guide to the U.S. health care system (nih.gov)](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4193322/)** As we can see it is not as private as it is so often claimed to be. Instead, it is a mess of Government intervention and funding, combined with highly regulated (by Government) industries. [^35]: **Link: [Human Experimentation: An Introduction to the Ethical Issues (pcrm.org)](https://www.pcrm.org/ethical-science/human-experimentation-an-introduction-to-the-ethical-issues)** [^36]: Singhs who aim to be *Tyar Bar Tyar* should be so in a multitude of ways. Smart financial planning and insurance should be part of this. Especially the Naujuwan and Bhujangis — health insurance is cheaper if you are young and healthy. [^37]: This is not to say that all adults are therefore by default acting rationally, but for the most part, they have a far higher probability to do so than a child can due to the time taken to develop mentally being longer. This should be taken as a rule of thumb; there are obviously many exceptions to this for which there would be appropriate support mechanisms in place that will be touched upon in the next section. [^38]: Adults would not have this right, since the state has no justification to force adults into education if they do not want to, as this would break their rights associated with NAP. Hence why these rights are “swapped” for children. Additionally, technically education isn’t a right in the same way that free speech is a right. It is an *entitlement*, something that you are given, not restricted from. The distinction between positive rights (entitlements) and negative rights (liberties) are important to understand, the following two clips give a better outline of these concepts: **Link: [Basic Human Rights Explained | Alex Gladstein and Lex Fridman - YouTube](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZKS3eS44tA)** **Link: [Positive Rights vs. Negative Rights | Learn Liberty](https://www.learnliberty.org/videos/positive-rights-vs-negative-rights/)** [^39]: “Property” is the only word that seemed appropriate in this context. However, unlike all other property, they can’t be bought and sold but they do have assigned relationships with people who are responsible for them, think “that child belongs to that mother”, not “that child is a slave who can be traded like a commodity”. [^40]: *Free to Choose* is a book based on the 1980s 10-part TV series by the same name and presented by Economist Milton Friedman themselves. I highly recommend checking it out. See Page 170 (181 of the PDF), available here: **Link: [Free To Choose: A Personal Statement (unam.mx)](http://www.proglocode.unam.mx/sites/proglocode.unam.mx/files/docencia/Milton%20y%20Rose%20Friedman%20-%20Free%20to%20Choose.pdf)** [^41]: "The education, or rather the uneducation, of black children from low income families is undoubtedly the greatest disaster area in public education and its most devastating failure. This is doubly tragic for it has always been the official ethic of public schooling that it was the poor and the oppressed who were its greatest beneficiaries." Ibid page 151 (162 of the PDF - **Link: [Free To Choose: A Personal Statement (unam.mx)](http://www.proglocode.unam.mx/sites/proglocode.unam.mx/files/docencia/Milton%20y%20Rose%20Friedman%20-%20Free%20to%20Choose.pdf)**) [^42]: **Link: [Why Milton Friedman Saw School Choice as a First Step, Not a Final One - Foundation for Economic Education (fee.org)](https://fee.org/articles/why-milton-friedman-saw-school-choice-as-a-first-step-not-a-final-one/)** [^43]: **Link: [Education System in North Korea - NGO - PSCORE](http://pscore.org/life-north-korea/forced-to-hate/)** [^44]: The same reasoning applies to media also. Under Azadism there is no justification for any sort of State-owned or funded (whether wholly or in part) media organisation whatsoever. In the UK the BBC would be an example of this. [^45]: It could be argued that sometimes subjects are studied for enjoyment rather than employment, and this is completely fine. If there is a market for that, then those things will be available. This is actually more in line with what universities were originally meant to be as well, centres to further knowledge out of curiosity rather than to secure employment necessarily. [^46]: **Link:  [Relavance of Gurukul System of Education in our Modern Education System to Transform the Engineering Education, An Experimental Study.pdf (ijiet.com)](http://ijiet.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/1158.pdf)** I’m unsure how scientific his experiment was in this paper, and it was quite obvious he was biased. But so is this manifesto, so oh well. Bias isn’t an issue in of itself, but dishonesty or delusion about it is. The value is in uncovering why someone or yourself may be biased in one way or the other. To adopt a bias is to take a stance on something. But be cautious of falling into dogma. [^47]: The rate at which student loans are paid back as of December 2020 is 25%. **Link: [Student loan statistics - House of Commons Library (parliament.uk)](https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn01079/)** [^48]: **Link: [Peter Schiff: The Government Created the Student Loan Bubble | SchiffGold](https://schiffgold.com/peters-podcast/peter-schiff-the-government-created-the-student-loan-bubble/)** [^49]: Again, the laws of supply and demand determine this. Those things that are in abundance but the demand does not match or rise with it, naturally reduces their “price” — in this case the worth or value of the degree.