**Reconciling freedom with providing social security.** ## Inequality and Poverty The problem of income and wealth inequality has existed throughout history in many societies. The only difference is that in the modern age, inequality has taken a slightly different form. Whereas in the past it was typically rulers and nobles hoarding wealth and power, today there exist private individuals whose net worth exceeds the GDPs of entire nations. Although this is indeed a problem, it may not be in the way that it is initially assumed to be. ‍ **Fig 1** ![[Inequality_Vs_Poverty.png]] <br> Figure 1 above illustrates inequality between two nations. Although Country A has greater inequality, its poorest are still wealthier than the richest in Country B. Despite its simplicity, the purpose of this example is to highlight a key element in this debate that is often overlooked: inequality is a secondary issue to that of poverty. If everyone in a nation is becoming wealthier, then, in theory, it should matter less that some individuals are becoming wealthier than others. The primary concern should be how they have made their money, not how much. In the real world, there are various methods for measuring economic inequality, one of the most common being the Gini coefficient[^1]. This measures the distribution of income or wealth among individuals within a nation. A Gini coefficient of one signifies perfect inequality (i.e., one person receives all the income), whereas a coefficient of zero represents perfect equality (everyone earns the exact same). To underscore the concept illustrated above using OECD data: Luxembourg and Spain have similar Gini coefficients (0.327 and 0.333, respectively), yet their GDP per capita differs greatly ($112,188 and $39,580)[^2]. Additionally, inequality is not static. Just because someone is poorer now does not mean they always will be. Economic mobility is another important consideration that is often overlooked. In a research paper examining the likelihood of experiencing relative poverty in the United States, Rank and Hirschl analyse the duration for which individuals remain in the bottom 10% and 20%. Their findings show that while 61.8% of people may enter the bottom 20% at some point, only 38.2% remain after one year. This rate continues to fall, with just 5.6% remaining there for ten or more consecutive years[^3]. For the bottom 10%, 42.1% experience at least one year at this level, but this figure falls to 20.5% after a year, and only 1.5% remain for ten or more consecutive years. However, this is relative poverty, not absolute, which is an important distinction. Absolute poverty refers to living below a set income threshold, while relative poverty is defined in relation to the average income of the population. This means that the relatively poorest in a high-income nation may enjoy a higher standard of living than the poorest in a lower-income one[^4]. The upper stratas also show similar levels of mobility too. Approximately 56% of Americans expect to reach the top 10% income bracket in their lifetimes, and 73% expect to reach the top 20%[^5]. Of those who enter the top 1%, 11.1% reach this level, but only 4.5% remain after a year, and about 0.6% stay there for ten or more consecutive years[^6]. Many factors contribute to such fluctuations: marriage, property sales, job change, and more. Yet popular discourse around inequality often focuses on forcible redistribution from the so-called “1%”, as if this were a fixed class permanently hoarding wealth. However, it is crucial to understand that the economy is not a zero-sum game. One of the most persistent economic myths is the ‘fixed-pie’ fallacy. This is the belief that total wealth is a fixed amount, and that if one person becomes richer, others must have become poorer. Much like a fixed-size pie that is sliced up and divided between recipients. If one person cuts a bigger slice for themselves, it naturally will leave everyone else with less. The problem is, however, wealth cannot be compared to a pie since wealth *grows*[^7]. With every invention or innovation comes an increase in the amount or quality of goods and services available in society, often creating entire new industries in which people can enter and expand. As new areas of human potential are unlocked, previously unimagined opportunities emerge. Jobs in less physically demanding areas become more accessible, and the fruits of this labour become increasingly rewarding. With better products and services available due to the societal increase in wealth, everyone benefits. It is a common mistake to judge wealth expansion solely in monetary terms instead of the expanded range and improved quality of goods and services now available. Today, even the poorest in wealthy nations may possess items such as smartphones, cars, and refrigerators, luxuries that would have blown the minds of even the wealthiest a century ago. Increasing wealth for all as opposed to just a few is mutually beneficial for all parties involved. The market structure creates a natural incentive to raise overall societal wealth, since this expands the customer base. As an entrepreneur, would you rather sell your product or service in an area of high wealth, or in a desert where nobody lives? Positive feedback loops such as these continuously elevate the wealth of society as a whole. By creating and sustaining positive feedback loops such as these the level of wealth increases. <br> **Fig 2** ![[Fixed_Pie_Fallacy.png]] <br> Statements such as _“the rich are getting richer, and the poor are getting poorer”_ are simply untrue. Through his work with the *Gapminder Institute*, Hans Rosling revealed many common misconceptions about the current state of the world[^8]. He demonstrated that people often believe things are worse, or deteriorating more rapidly, than they actually are. Some of the most striking examples involve global poverty levels. In one of Gapminder’s surveys, participants were asked to estimate what percentage of the global population lives in extreme poverty today, considering it was 40% in 1980. Astonishingly, 92% of respondents answered incorrectly, expecting either an increase or a much smaller reduction than the actual current level of around 10%. Despite rising inequality, global poverty has sharply declined. This reduction has been accompanied by falling infant mortality rates, increased life expectancy, and a general rise in quality of life[^9] .A more reasonable conclusion based on the facts is that the rich are getting richer at a faster rate than the poor are getting richer — but we are *all* indeed getting richer [^10]. Which makes logical sense. Those with more capital would have greater means to invest and accumulate wealth. For example, a 7% return on £1 million yields far more in absolute terms than the same return on £100,000. Crucially, the rich are better positioned to benefit from the concept of compounding interest, since they have more money compounding, and because they are more likely to be aware of how compounding works in the first place[^11][^12]. To view wealth as a zero-sum game is fundamentally flawed. Many have made this mistake, predicting that as the global population increases, poverty would necessarily rise due to there being “less to go around”[^13]. Fortunately, reality has proven them all incorrect as poverty has instead declined dramatically, even as population has surged over the past century. Human beings are not cattle or crops. We possess the capacity to think, innovate, and shape our environment to overcome challenges. Human ingenuity is the reason why you can read these words right now. Having more people increases the opportunity for innovation, specialisation, and wealth creation. It enables society to better circumnavigate, or at least reduce the magnitude of impact of great threats such as disease, natural disasters, and even war. Admittedly, innovation has brought its own problems as well such as climate change and superbugs, however this is just more reason to innovate further. To facilitate this, a society must foster free thought and expand opportunities by getting the Government out of the way. If concerns about overpopulation persist, further reassurance can be drawn from research by the Gapminder Institute. Hans Rosling explains that current projections suggest the global population may plateau and peak at around 11 billion by the year 2100. In the past, and still today in some developing countries (although reducing), the number of children per household averaged much higher than it is now. This was mainly due to the nature of work which required support from larger family units, and given the fact most children ended up dying before reaching adulthood, there was greater incentive to have more children in order to ensure that at least a few of them would survive. However, thanks to advancements in medicine, hygiene, and education, these incentives have now changed. More children now survive into adulthood, and so having large families can become increasingly burdensome for many. With education becoming more accessible, children can access work opportunities away from hard labour, escape poverty and uplift their whole families. These reasons contribute to the diminished incentive for families to have so many children, and to instead focus on investing in fewer children with better prospects. Over time, birth rates are expected to reach equilibrium with death rates, and give the planet a constant population level of approximately 11 billion. Over time, birth rates are expected to reach equilibrium with death rates, stabilising the global population at approximately 11 billion. While global poverty has indeed fallen, its decline has been uneven. When you were reading the above, your mind may have instinctively visualised families in some African nation, Bangladesh or other, what is often referred to as, “third world countries”. This is not racism. The fact is that the “West” and other developed regions have seen unprecedented levels of wealth creation. As a result, their populations suffer far less from extreme poverty, or absolute poverty in general. We can cry about this, complain and give all manner of excuses. Or we can learn from it and explore the real reasons as to why this disparity exists. If we really want to understand how to build successful societies in which poverty is minute (if it exists at all) and people are able to prosper and live free, we must understand the reality of the situation by putting aside emotion and adopting reason. It may be easy to stick all the blame for this on the colonial powers of the past few centuries, namely British Colonialism in particular. However, something was unique about these invaders compared to the past. Many empires have risen and fallen, and many kings were able to amass great hordes of wealth through conquest and plunder. What made modern colonial empires unique was not merely the extent of their plunder, but how they retained and deployed the wealth they accumulated. In contrast to earlier empires where riches largely stayed amongst the royal classes, some colonial powers began to distribute wealth more widely. Not through any altruism necessarily, but a by-product of limited economic freedoms being extended beyond the elite. This is not a defence of the British Empire, and in fact, much of how they operated is entirely antithetical to Azadist philosophy[^14]. The British East India Company was a State-backed monopoly, granted exclusive trade rights in India by their monarch, precisely the kind of State interference Azadism rejects and was contested in the previous chapter. Azadists recognise that the British Empire (and others like it) caused profound harm. In fact any “good” that did come out of it was attached to costs so high it is ridiculous to suggest that any of it was “for the best”. The sheer number of lives lost, families destroyed, cultures dismantled, religions distorted, generations robbed of dignity, and spirits crushed are beyond compensation. That being said, while many of the modern nation-states that suffered under British colonialism can trace their present-day challenges to that history, it is not sufficient to remain in a mindset that progress is impossible without reparations, or to expect apologies from today’s politicians. Many of whom were not alive at the time and who may hypocritically be complicit in other injustices today. Whilst we must always recognise and remember injustices, and pursue *meaningful* justice, we must not become so entrenched in pessimism or victimhood that it distracts us from the progress we can make in the present to overcome colonial legacies. Simply recycling victim narratives without constructive action is counterproductive. Among the countries once colonised by the British, the post-independence trajectories have varied significantly. Some have languished in corruption and poverty, while others have outpaced even their former colonisers in terms of prosperity, quality of life, and many other factors. The attitude a society adopts, its willingness to take responsibility for the future, has a profound effect on its success, despite historical setbacks. To suggest that developed nations are rich _solely_ because they stole from others is neither productive nor entirely accurate. Many empires stole as part of their modus operandi. But there is a reason why several of the modern colonial powers, after the collapse of their empires and their transformation into nation-states, still operate relatively advanced, wealthy economies. So why does this disparity exist? Why are these post-colonial nation-states still relatively wealthy? Why have some former colonies surpassed their colonisers, while others remain decades behind? Numerous theories have been proposed to explain why some nations are richer than others, as outlined in the opening chapters of Acemoglu and Robinson’s _Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity and Poverty_. Race, culture, and climate have all been invoked historically, however the geography hypothesis in particular has been a particularly prevalent theory, and not without reason. In _The Wealth of Nations_, Adam Smith highlights the economic advantages of maritime access. Chapter 3 goes through the limiting factors associated with the division of labour, in which he highlights the importance of *transport* in opening up trade and getting access to the world markets. Ships in particular revolutionised trade by transporting larger volumes, over greater distances with relatively less labour, and in less time, than traditional horse and carriage. This allowed the economies of port cities to flourish far greater than remote in-land settlements, due to the greater access to markets through a more efficient method of trade. Throughout history, those societies that were situated on coastlines or had access to ports and the sea, tended to progress far greater than those that had not. Even today some of the world’s most wealthy nations-states are actually city-states such as Hong Kong, Singapore and Taiwan, which have extensive ports and sea networks linked to them. Maharaja Ranjit Singh, recognising the importance of access to the sea, also had ambitions to expand his empire to the coast before his kingdom collapsed[^15]. Conversely, isolation has repeatedly hindered prosperity. Sowell expressed the failure of isolationism as an economic policy by pointing out how historically, those societies that kept to themselves and avoided interactions with foreigners led to much diminished levels of success in comparison. Smith also eluded to this in his own time using examples of settlements and cities that were located further inland and comparing them to port towns, or cities located on shorelines or the banks of great rivers. These factors made trade far easier and thus wealth was better able to be transferred and grow, for the mutual benefit of all involved. Yet the geography hypothesis can only take us so far. While it may help explain differences between cities or regions, it often falls short when applied to entire nation-states. Nor is access to the sea necessarily decisive. Switzerland, for instance, is a completely landlocked country, yet remains one of the most successful and prosperous nation-states in history. Acemoglu and Robinson instead reject this hypothesis in favour of a new perspective, suggesting that it is the ease of access to institutions that is the most important factor. By pointing out a series of examples around the world of states with similar geographies but with huge disparities in wealth, they put the idea that “some places are just better suited than others” under scrutiny. North and South Korea (despite their once vast similarities in race, culture and geography) could not be more different in their trajectories after their split. Why is this? The US and Mexico is another relevant example, with the town of Nogales being one of the case studies used in their book. This town is divided by a border, half in Mexico and the other half in the US. However, on the US side the residents earn three times more, have lower crime rates and live longer lives. The reason for this lies in the formation and subsequent development of these two nations. When Spanish colonisers arrived in Mexico, they found a land with resources was far superior to North America’s, and its large native population were were quickly enslaved. The Europeans landing further north though faced far more resistance, harsher terrain and poorer land quality. Whereas the Spaniards to the south established extractive institutions to exploit the native inhabitants and created a system in which to keep them merely on a subsistence level (and therefore reliant on their invaders). If not outright enslaved, they would be forced to work for low wages, pay high taxes and inflated prices for goods and services. This time-tested model expanded the wealth of the royal families and conquistadors, but at the expense of the economic prosperity of the colonised nation as a whole. The resource and labour rich southern regions being thoroughly exploited, the English arriving late were left with the inferior northern territories. Initially failing to replicate similar methods, they instead were forced to grow their own food and trade. Their initial plan to kidnap the natives’ king and hold him ransom proved unviable, and so instead they were forced to negotiate and work with them (for the time being at least). Their efforts then turned towards exploiting their fellow colonists instead and so they set up a large corporation, called the Virginia Company, who claimed ownership over the land. New settlers from Europe were then forced to work under gruelling conditions in pre-defined roles and oversaw by company agents. Naturally, people began to run away into the frontier and in response the company imposed death penalties for anyone caught deserting. Inevitably, this system collapsed as people from Europe became aware of the situation and avoided traveling over. With the population dwindling, the Virginia Company had to change its tactics. Realising that the typical colonial strategy was not feasible for their circumstances, they instead granted land to their workers to cultivate on their own as well as rights to have their voices heard in determining laws via general assemblies. By giving the people (at least some of them) a stake in their own success, the system now geared towards an incentive based one rather than solely exploitation based. Over time, other colonies began springing up after being granted land by the English crown. The lords of these colonies were given freedom to experiment with different types of government structures, and after failing to implement the feudal systems that had existed in England, they too conformed to the principles on which the Virigina Company began to trend towards. The feudal system they failed to replicate was similar to the Mughal system in which lords were given ultimate authority over areas, and under them came tenants (or zamindars in India), which further delegated land and labour in order to raise taxes for the lords and state monarchs in return for wages[^16]. Interestingly and similarly to India, a pseudo-caste system developed with the lower classes being known as “leet men”, and their children also inheriting their status. However, this too created perverse incentives and ultimately collapsed, as more attractive alternatives existed in either escaping into the frontier or just remaining in Europe. Eventually the colonies became proto-republics in a sense that each was governed by an assembly of all the land owners within a district. These were far off the “democracies”, or more accurately the *republic*, that came later on as they refused rights to black people, women and the poor[^17]. Nevertheless, they were revolutionary for their time, particularly in terms of the breadth of political representation. Although rudimentary, these early structures marked the beginnings of a system in which wealth and power began to shift away from just monarchs and central elites. This crucial restructuring enabled the North American colonisers to gradually pursue greater freedoms both economically and politically[^18]. Mexico, on the other hand, drafted a constitution that preserved power among the elite classes. Although there was an effort to introduce a proposal for popular political representation, it ultimately failed to gain traction. As a result, Mexican society was structured to prioritise the interests of the upper classes. Rather than empowering the common people, its institutions geared towards consolidating monopolies and exploiting the native population. It was only the wealthy who were able to access essential institutions and services such as acquiring loans or legal protections, making it very difficult for ordinary people to start their own businesses and build independent wealth. This institutional exclusivity, combined with long-standing political instability and a diminished capacity to enforce private property rights, meant the Mexican economy as a whole lagged behind. In contrast, the United States operated in a far more decentralised manner. Power was distributed through senates and wider (albeit still restricted) forms of representation for the common man. Although not fully inclusive, this structure provided a significantly broader political base than existed in Mexico at the time. It also positioned the US to better capitalise on the opportunities brought by the Industrial Revolution. One example of this was the expansion of access to patents and financial institutions[^19]. Because patents were relatively inexpensive, even individuals from modest backgrounds had a genuine opportunity to invent and bring new ideas to market. The banking sector played a critical role in facilitating this. With few restrictions, competition among banks flourished, enabling them to offer lower interest rates and making capital more accessible to a wider portion of the population[^20]. In 1818, the US had 338 banks. By 1914, that number had grown to 27,864. Mexico, by contrast, had only 42 banks by 1910, and just two of them controlled 60% of all banking assets. The lack of competition kept interest rates high, effectively cutting off the path of entrepreneurship for Mexico’s poorest. Therefore, only the already wealthy could feasibly access these services and they used it to consolidate their wealth and expand their influence to monopolise existing industries. In the US, if someone had an idea, they were far more likely to get funding and freedom to try it, thereby enabling a greater proportion of the people to start their own enterprises. Naturally this then led to increased levels of competition amongst the private sector, leading to innovation and wealth expansion for all. Fundamentally, it is *economic freedom* that best maximises the chances for prosperity and the reduction of poverty. The *Index of Economic Freedom* developed by the Heritage Foundation, is a annual ranking that measures economic freedom in nations across the world. It takes into account the following 12 factors[^21]: <br> | Rule of Law | Government Size | Regulatory Efficiency | Open Markets | | ---------------------- | ------------------- | --------------------- | ------------------ | | Property Rights | Government Spending | Business Freedom | Trade Freedom | | Government Integrity | Tax Burden | Labour Freedom | Investment Freedom | | Judicial effectiveness | Fiscal Health | Monetary Freedom | Financial Freedom | ^{Many of these factors mirror what Azadism is concerned with, and by looking at how each indicator effects the overall score for economic freedom, we can get a good idea of how prosperity can be achieved. Refer to the Appendix to see exactly how an Azadist state aims to perform in each category.} <br> When examining nations around the world today, those that tend towards economic freedom exhibit the lowest levels of poverty and the highest levels of prosperity. Some of the top-ranking countries on the Index of Economic Freedom include Singapore, Hong Kong, New Zealand, South Korea, Ireland, and Switzerland. Although not perfect (as each has issues of its own), these nations nonetheless currently best encapsulate Azadist principles in practice and may be regarded as real-world implementations of many ideas presented in this manifesto. Combining low tax rates, reduced barriers to entry for businesses, strong enforcement of property rights, and minimal Government corruption, these nations have become some of the most prosperous regions in history — many of which began as little more than insignificant fishing villages. Wherever freedom has been embraced, societies have improved, and freedom in the economic sense is a necessary component of freedom as a whole. The causation for this correlation lies in the increased wealth that economic freedom makes possible. Greater wealth enables broader access to resources and more diverse ways of working, thereby granting individuals more options in how they live their lives. It is on this basis that Azadism seeks to export liberty and prosperity to any region of the globe, offering proven principles and structures for success. To the extent that a nation has trended towards freedom, it has seen improvements in quality of life, longer and healthier lifespans, and general increases in wealth. Giving people a choice is freedom by definition, and when those who are seeking the best for themselves are able to do so (constrained only by the NAP), it is then no surprise then why the best outcomes are manifested. By every major metric, prosperity has risen globally as the world has embraced greater economic freedom. It is therefore imperative that, in order to eliminate poverty, the trend towards freedom continues. Even if inequality rises as a by-product, the fact remains that under Azadist conditions, unlike under the colonial models of the past, everyone becomes better off when wealth is grown and distributed through voluntary, decentralised means. This is not to say inequality is irrelevant. Rather, the real issue lies in how inequality is perceived, and thus its impact on social stability. It seems as though many people are accustomed to seeing the situation around them for what it is now, rather than the progress that has led to this point. It is natural to feel compassion for those in hardship and resentment toward those in vastly better circumstances. But feeding this disdain for wealth and those who possess more of it than you do easily leads to jealousy and a lack of appreciation for what you do have compared to others who don’t yet have, or did not in the past. Such a mindset overlooks the reality that both poverty and wealth are often temporary conditions. And overall, the trajectory has been one of improvement. Ignoring this progress gives rise to a form of social tension between “rich” and “poor”, a tension not to be underestimated, as Jordan Peterson has cautions[^22]: <br> > “There's no doubt that inequality destabilizes societies. I think the social science evidence on that front is crystal clear.” > ― Jordan Peterson <br> This inevitably leads to a situation in which tribalism manifests, and groups compete to gain the Government's favour to debilitate the other. In the process, the entire society suffers. In fact, the fool Karl Marx based much of his ideas off of this dichotomy, promoting the idea of a class struggle between the “bourgeoisie” and “proletariat”[^23]. These notions went on to materialise with the horrors witnessed under the USSR in which groups such as the Kulaks were sent to Gulags and killed en masse. Hitler then took these ideas further by applying his own racial tint by demonizing the Jews, using wealth as a key component of his propaganda against them too. So how should inequality be addressed? Azadism proposes that a society must enhance upward mobility for the poorest by removing artificial barriers on them and maximising opportunity. The previous chapter examined the harms caused by restrictions on competition and entry into markets. This rest of this chapter now shifts focus to how best to safeguard and uplift those currently in poverty. Fundamentally, the priority should be to alleviate poverty by maximising human potential, not by punishing success[^24]. To conclude this section, contemplate the following example from Ithiaas. On visiting their Gursikh, Bhai Lalo, Guru Nanak and Bhai Mardana were offered food prepared by the poor carpenter. The Government appointed custodian of the village, Malik Bhago was made aware the Guru’s arrival and invited him to abandon the peasants hospitality and to partake in his feast instead. After initially trying to decline, he then brought with him a roti (flatbread) from Bhai Lalo’s house. Holding one roti in each hand, Lalo’s in one, Bhago’s in the other, he squeezed them. Milk oozed from Lalo’s, while blood dripped from Bhago’s. A powerful metaphor, exposing the corruption and exploitation of Bhago and the cruelty in which he treated his workers. Whereas milk symbolised the purity of Bhai Lalo’s nature and hard work. The problem here was not his wealth, it was the means in which he obtained it. The later manifestations of the Guru controlled vast amounts of wealth relative to the average population of the time. Were they also immoral for being so rich? Wealth is only a tool, same way weapons or wagons are. The nature of those who use them should be the primary concern. Azadists should be concerned not with how much someone has, but with how it was earned[^25]. If it was through violating the NAP then it is illegitimate and only then it is deemed immoral. If, however, it was gained by offering a good or service that others willingly paid for, then no issue should be raised at the State level. It is not automatically true that someone who owns a lot of wealth is by default consumed by greed and attachment. Consider Diwan Todar Mal. After the martyrdom of Guru Gobind Singh’s youngest sons and their grandmother, Mata Gujri, he purchased the land required for their cremation by blanketing the area with gold coins, meeting the extortionate demand of Mughal Governor and butcherer Wazir Khan. He expended his entire fortune not to display wealth, but to uphold *Dharam*, honour the memory of the shaheeds, and stand in defiance of tyranny. Only someone as wealthy as Todar Mal would have been able to express such devotion. Another example is Makhan Shah Lubana, a prosperous merchant who, after being miraculously saved from a perilous sea storm, pledged 500 gold coins to the Guru. On arriving in Bakala, he found many impostors claiming Guruship. He offered two coins to each, until finally, upon meeting Guru Tegh Bahadur, he was asked, _“Where are the other coins of your offering?”_ With joy and reverence, Makhan Shah declared to all, *“Guru ladho re!”* — *“I have found the Guru!”*. Through his wealth, and his integrity in fulfilling his promise, the true Guru was revealed, in the same way how gold is sifted out from dirt. When Raja Janak was told that his kingdom was engulfed in flames along with all his worldly possessions, he remained unmoved, preferring to listen to the sermons of his Guru. Instead, it was the religious *brahmins* who owned nothing but their *janeau* and two sets of clothes (one set of which was currently in the burning palace), who ran to save their belongings. The one who appeared materially wealthy remained detached; the ones who claimed to renounce _Maya_ were consumed by it. <br> > **ਭਗਤੁ ਵਡਾ ਰਾਜਾ ਜਨਕੁ ਹੈ ਗੁਰਮੁਖਿ ਮਾਇਆ ਵਿਚਿ ਉਦਾਸੀ**। > King Janak was a great saint who admist Maya remained indifferent to it > > ― Bhai Gurdas Ji Vaaran, Vaar 10 <br> ## Taxes The two primary functions of tax are: 1. To pay for public goods 2. To redistribute wealth The first function becomes largely defunct in an Azadist economy, since most industries are eventually privatised and handed over to the market. Initially, tax revenue would still be required to uphold the Government’s core security and justice functions. However, even this is intended to be phased out over time and replaced by a _Dasvandh_-based approach or any other means in which transactions are voluntary. This subsection will primarily focus on the second function: redistribution. To combat inequality, it is common to hear proposals that advocate higher taxes on the rich in order to give more to the poor. However, the real-world consequences of such “Robin Hood” tactics carry significant drawbacks[^26]. Take, for instance, the idea of raising corporate tax rates on the largest, most successful firms to force them to “give back.” Excessively taxing these firms makes it increasingly unprofitable for them to operate in that region, incentivising them to relocate elsewhere. When they move, they take with them employment, investment, and access to valuable goods and services. Rather than increasing tax revenue, the Government is left with nothing. For example, if Country A imposes a corporate tax rate of 50%, while Country B offers a rate of 10%, it is economically rational for a corporation to prefer operating in Country B. Of course, there are many other variables to consider when a firm “shops around” such as political stability, infrastructure, geography, and access to skilled labour. Yet tax policy remains a major factor. We have already seen this in practice, with many multinational firms relocating their headquarters to Ireland for precisely such reasons[^27]. Simply increasing taxes without offering any corresponding benefits or incentives for businesses to stay is a counterproductive solution. Just as a trader cannot justify charging exorbitant prices for a product that is available cheaper elsewhere, a Government cannot arbitrarily raise the “price” of doing business, or existing at all, without offering fair value in return. Furthermore, the loss of employment opportunities, diminished competition, and fewer goods and services ultimately harm the very people these policies intend to help. By creating disincentives for business, the number of businesses, both domestic and foreign, naturally decline. This logic applies not only to corporations but also to individuals. As discussed throughout this manifesto, the power of incentives must not be understated. Imposing higher costs on financial success sends a message that “the more you earn, the more that will be taken”. Why would people work to achieve something where then an increasingly larger portion of their income has to be given to the Government to spend on their behalf? At a certain point, people may rationally conclude that it is not worth striving for high levels of financial success if a disproportionate share is confiscated through taxation. Their motivation only gets worse the more incompetent and malevolent the Government is, leading to more people feeling that their best interests can no longer be satisfied by their politicians. Instead, it becomes more logical to relocate and to preserve or grow wealth in jurisdictions that reward rather than penalise success[^28]. In doing so, they also take with them valuable skills, entrepreneurship, and capital. Resources that could have otherwise benefited their home country[^29]. Alongside the retention of wealth argument, another factor to consider is the loss of domestic investment. By increasing taxes on the rich and large businesses, they are left with less capital to reinvest. Money that could have gone toward upgrading equipment, expanding operations, or hiring more workers is instead siphoned off by the Government and redirected according to bureaucratic priorities rather than entrepreneurial judgement. In other words, resources that would have been re-invested directly into the economy are now seized and reallocated by the State as it sees fit. Whether this reallocation results in genuine benefit now depends entirely on the competence and benevolence of those in charge. Instead of being invested in ways that benefit efficient organisations (and, by extension, their employees and customers), the funds are more likely to end up in inefficient State programmes. These operate outside traditional market forces, often ignoring price signals and failing to respond to consumer demand. Conveniently, in some instances, companies that happen to be friends or family of the politicians win Government contracts and become recipients of those funds. In worse cases, such revenue may be used to fund foreign wars that the public has not consented to, or poured into failing public institutions under the misguided belief that more money alone will resolve their dysfunction. Rather than letting the market guide resource allocation through the natural mechanism of supply and demand, the Government assumes this role with little accountability and significant waste. All the while, chunks of this revenue is pocketed by politicians and bureaucrats in the process. The firms being taxed (those that originally generated these profits) have already demonstrated their capacity to meet real demand through voluntary exchange. If their methods created value and satisfied consumer preferences, why entrust those same earnings to a central authority to gamble on inefficient, non-competitive ventures that do not adhere to market principles or the laws of supply and demand? In a market environment, if a firm allocates resources inefficiently, it will suffer the consequences and may ultimately fail, thereby freeing up those same resources for more competent and efficient businesses to manage. In contrast, under a State-led redistribution system, it is the taxpayer who absorbs the cost of inefficiency. While the intention may be to help those in need through redistribution, the actual outcomes often fall short and may even cause more harm than good. It is the market mechanism that best redistributes wealth, provided the Government gets out of the way and allows competition to thrive. Increased competition lowers prices, improves quality, and expands consumer choice. This naturally raises the standard of living across society without coercive interference. Moreover, in practice, many high-income earners do not simply accept higher tax rates. Instead, they use tax avoidance schemes and invest in “creative accounting” to reduce their taxable income. Common strategies include placing wealth in tax-sheltered bonds, overseas accounts, and other protected instruments. These are funds that might otherwise have been invested more directly into the productive economy. Overly complex tax systems benefit those who can afford expert financial advice. The wealthiest individuals are often able to exploit legal, and at times illegal, loopholes unavailable to the general population. Most people cannot afford to hire accountants or tax specialists. This makes the burden of navigating a convoluted tax code fall disproportionately on those with fewer resources. Additionally, history has already tested the theory of excessive taxation. In 1921, the top marginal income tax rate in the United States for those earning over $100,000 was 73%. That year, $700 million in tax revenue was collected, but only around 30% of individuals in that bracket actually paid tax. However, when the top rate was reduced to 24% by 1929, not only did the proportion of high earners paying taxes increase to 65 percent, but total tax revenue also rose to over $1 billion[^30]. Paradoxically, not only was more revenue raised with the lower tax rate, the coverage was also greater. This may seem counterintuitive, but as Thomas Sowell explains, the outcome is straightforward. Lower tax rates gave high earners greater freedom to reinvest their income into the broader economy instead of hiding it in tax-exempt securities or diverting it through accounting loopholes. This reinvestment led to increased productivity, more employment, and higher wages, which in turn expanded the tax base. Even at lower rates, more income became available to be taxed. What might have seemed obvious at first, that raising tax rates increases tax revenue, the reality is that the relationship is actual an inverse one for the most part. Furthermore, despite frequent calls for the wealthy to “pay their fair share”, the burden of taxation already falls heavily on high-income earners. In the United States, this remains true even under a progressive tax system. It is still “the rich” who end up contributing the most to the overall tax revenue. This becomes particularly clear when looking at effective tax rates, meaning the amount paid in taxes minus any benefits or transfers received from the Government. On average, only the top 40 percent of income earners pay more in taxes than they receive back (if they receive anything at all)[^31]. The majority of lower-income earners are net beneficiaries, not net contributors. So, even as tax rates on the wealthy increase, the effectiveness of redistribution is undermined by avoidance, evasion, and the perverse consequences of an overly complex tax system. Under Azadism, a lower and simpler tax system would be implemented at the outset. Given the greatly diminished role of the State, there would be less need for high tax revenue in the first place. A reduced tax burden would also help retain wealthy individuals and businesses by lowering the cost of success, making the nation more competitive in attracting capital rather than repelling it. Setting corporate tax to zero, for example, would remove barriers to entry by reducing the cost of establishing and maintaining businesses. This would generate a net positive for the economy through increased employment, greater availability of goods and services, and a more competitive, innovative market environment. Additionally, there is a saying in Punjabi: “*jaise sangat vaise rangat*”, meaning that you a coloured by the company you keep. In a society in which entrepreneurship is permeated, it increases the likelihood of new entrepreneurs arising. This is why hubs like Silicon Valley are so successful, or even elite private schools and universities. It is the network and community around an individual that increases the odds of success and opens doors to new opportunities. Azadism also advocates for simplifying the tax code by removing unnecessary taxes and abolishing progressive rates which would reduce the incentive for tax avoidance. A “flat tax” system will help to remove the incentive to exploit loopholes and even increase the difficulty in finding them in the first place. If before you were being taxed 70% of your income, and by hiring an accountant (which would charge their own high fees) to, in theory, cut the cost you pay by half; why then would they do this if the tax rate is far below the 35% in the first place? Incentives must always be considered in any effective tax policy. Further to this, rather than relying on a complicated system of multi-tier brackets and a wide range of tax types, Azadism proposes a flat tax on just income as a temporary transitional model[^32]. This would apply equally to all eligible citizens. As already discussed, there is little concern about generating sufficient revenue at a lower rate. In fact, coverage would likely increase, which in turn would raise overall revenue. The simpler the system, the harder it becomes to find loopholes, and the lower the tax rate the less incentive there is to seek them in the first place. A flat tax rate is also far more fair and does not penalise success like progressive rates do too. The economist Milton Friedman calculated that under a flat tax system, the USA in 1962 could have raised the same amount of revenue with only a flat 23.5% tax rate[^33]. At that time, the highest brackets went up to a mind-boggling 91%! When combined with the small size of Government and the privatisation of most industries, it becomes far more plausible for a nation to shift from debt to surplus. Any such surplus should be returned directly to the people, rather than retained by the State to risk squandering. Over time, the tax rate could be further adjusted downward, allowing individuals to retain more of their honest earnings. This simpler and lower-rate tax system would also attract foreign investment, creating further opportunities and increasing prosperity for all members of society. As inefficient and costly Government programmes are phased out, the private sector would take on most of their functions. With reduced costs of doing business and fewer regulatory barriers, individuals and communities would be empowered to offer better solutions. They would also compete with one another to deliver the best possible outcomes at the lowest possible cost, ensuring that quality and accessibility are shaped by merit and responsiveness, rather than bureaucracy. The minimal tax rate, applied equally, would fund the few remaining State functions. However, Azadism is a dynamic philosophy, and even this is temporary… <br> ## Tax is theft The reader may recall the beginning of Section III, which discussed *Langar, Dasvandh, and Choice*. In that section, the immoral implications of tax-funded enterprise were contrasted with a _Dasvandh_-based model. For the reasons outlined there, an Azadist economy would ultimately seek to phase out taxation altogether in favour of voluntary contributions. Responsibility would increasingly rest with the people themselves to fund the systems that protect them, even if that means tolerating the presence of so-called "free riders"[^34]. If the Government wishes to continue existing under this model, it must provide genuine value to the people. If it can not, then the people at this level of Azaadi can “unsubscribe” and instead finance different a provider. This approach helps maintain a critical balance of power, giving the people greater ability to control the Government’s income and scope. Consider 15 February 2003, when one of the largest protests in recorded history took place against the invasion of Iraq[^35]. Public sentiment was clearly opposed. Yet politicians disregarded that opposition and proceeded anyway. What ensued was a catastrophic conflict that left countless civilians dead, alongside military casualties on all sides. The war unleashed lasting instability across the Middle East, contributed to the rise of extremist groups such as ISIS, and displaced millions of people. All of this destruction and loss of life was justified by claims of supposed weapons of mass destruction that never existed. The entire campaign was built on a lie, and many of the politicians responsible remain free to this day. All of it was possible because they could act without reliance on public consent and finance their actions through taxpayers’ funds. However, under a donation-based model, the Government would be placed in a far more accountable position. If a nation operating under Azadist principles had been asked to fund the Iraq War, the people could have refused. Without voluntary funding, the Government would be financially handicapped, unable to sustain military campaigns that lacked popular support[^36]. By contrast, in a tax-based system, the people are compelled to fund whatever the Government chooses to pursue regardless of whether they agree with it. Each individual becomes, to some degree, complicit in actions they may morally oppose. By the very nature of taxes, each individual in a society is in part funding the indiscriminate drone strikes that murder both insurgents and children alike. *Your* earnings maintain the government monopolies on ineffective industries that would have otherwise innovated to find cures to dangerous diseases, or educated a population of innovators. *You* fund so-called wars on drugs, terror and poverty, that in reality tend to exacerbate these crucial issues further. And if you refuse to participate? You are labelled an enemy of the State, then kidnapped and thrown into a cage. If you don’t believe this, simply stop paying your taxes and see what happens. After a few threatening letters, refusal to comply tends to lead to a death squad (the police) to be sent to your home to kidnap (arrest) you, and take you to be held in a cage (prison), ironically financed by the very taxes you rejected. If you resist, they will continue to escalate the situation to eventually murder you, much preferring a corpse than someone who does not pay them tax. Taxation, at its core, is plunder. It is the forced acquisition of a person’s property and labour, in the form of money, through violence or the threat of violence. Governments often justify this under the guise of "protection", but in practice, how does this differ from a Mafia protection racket? From murder to trafficking, if this manifesto listed the extent of the crimes that Governments commit in the name of “protecting its citizens”, this publication would become too voluminous. To recognise this reality is crucial. Despite its principled opposition to taxation, Azadism is not so radical as to be blind to pragmaticism and delusional about consequences. Abolishing all taxes overnight would be economically and socially devastating. Transformations of this scale require time, gradual implementation, and parallel development of alternative systems. Many current state-run services, however inefficient, still support people who would be severely affected if such structures were dismantled too quickly. The private sector and voluntary associations need space to grow before they can meaningfully replace the role of the State. To that end, the Azadist tax reform process could follow this general sequence: <br> 1. **Implementation of a flat tax rate** All existing tax brackets would be removed, leaving a single universal rate for all. Other taxes. particularly those that are distortionary or unjustified (like inheritance tax — literal grave robbery), would be eliminated. The only remaining tax could be on income, or alternatively a State could consider options such as a consumption tax or land value tax[^37]. <br> 2. **Gradual devolution of tax collection** Over time, the responsibility for tax collection would shift to smaller jurisdictions, first to individual states, then to cities or towns. These smaller governing units, which are outlined in the final part of this manifesto, would be permitted to reduce the tax rate (but not increase it). As tax revenue decreases, it would be replaced with voluntary donations or community-based funding, where necessary. <br> 3. **Local autonomy in taxation** Eventually, each locality would be empowered to set its own rate, or none at all. This transition period allows for both the growth of private alternatives and the accumulation of private wealth among individuals. Localities that refuse to reduce taxes would be naturally subjected to market pressure, as people and businesses relocate. Over time, if a locality persists in coercive taxation without consent, it would be considered theft. In such cases, intervention by security forces would be justified to uphold the Non-Aggression Principle and individual liberty. <br> The ultimate aim is a taxless society in which even the final functions of the State, security, defence and justice, are replaced by a multitude of private providers. Private courts, arbitration agencies, and decentralised security services could emerge to take over these responsibilities, which will be discussed further in the final section and subsequent publications in more depth. However, this remains a long-term aspiration. Its realisation depends entirely on the success of earlier phases and, crucially, on the will of the people. A more realistic approach would be to begin by experimenting with these models on a small scale (what Azadism calls *Small-Scale-Stans*). Where localities or communities voluntarily adopt these systems and demonstrate success, they can serve as examples to be replicated and exported elsewhere. If all residents of a particular area willingly agree to contribute to a shared fund this would also be permissible[^38]. But voluntarism is the key. Such arrangements already exist in various forms across the world in communes, co-housing projects, mutual aid networks, special economic zones or autonomous regions, and sovereign orders. Because participation is voluntary and consent-based, they are fully compatible (and encouraged) with Azadist principles. Azadism seeks to grant them more freedoms and unburden them from any State pressure they may currently face. An ideal of taxless society is not a foreign concept to Sikhi either. On giving the description of an ideal city, *Begumpura*, Bhagat Ravidas gives one of the qualities of the city to be free from taxes on goods. <br> > **ਨਾਂ ਤਸਵੀਸ ਖਿਰਾਜੁ ਨ ਮਾਲੁ ॥** > There are no troubles or taxes on commodities there > > *― Sri Guru Granth Sahib, Ang 345* <br> The reader is encouraged to read the whole Shabad on Begumpura and contemplate it further. For instance, other qualities described relate to social equality, and crucially, safety and security. Exactly in line with Azadist core fundamentals, and why three of the four functions it prioritises is: defence, policing, the justice system. Without the three S’s of *safety*, *security* and *stability*, a society can not establish an economy or prosper in general. Searching up the term “tax” on Gurbani search engines outputs a fairly clear perception of tax collectors too, often associated with Yama/Azrael, the messenger of death[^39]. It is a shame how amongst the Sikh Sangat of today especially, attitudes towards taxes can often be supportive and treated as a preferential government activity. It just highlights the level of docility amongst the Panth today and the ignorance to the fact that paying taxes to another invalidates one’s status as a sovereign. Today, many are happy seeing themselves or others taxed, even if it is used to fund the most unethical causes. Rare is it to hear any sort of outrage against this constant theft, from the Khalsa in particular. Instead the opposite is encouraged when seeing support for political parties that raise taxes and further increase the size of government. However, here is the response our Guru gave to the Hill Rajai when they demanded taxes off him[^40]: <br> > **ਸ੍ਰੀ ਕਲਗੀਧਰ ਗਰਜਿ ਕੈ ਮੇਘ ਮਾਨਿੰਦ ਬਲਿੰਦ । ਉੱਤਰ ਦਯੋ ਲਿਖਾਇ ਕਰਿ  ਸ਼ੋਕ ਦੇਨਿ ਰਿਪੁ ਬ੍ਰਿੰਦ ।੧।** > The Highest Plume-Wearing (Guru Gobind Singh), like thunder from giant clouds roared! The scribe began writing His response, which would strike pain in the hearts of the Hill Rajas. > > **ਚੌਪਈ ।** > **ਸੁਨੀਅਹਿ ਭੀਮਚੰਦ ਅਭਿਮਾਨੀ । ਸਭਿ ਰਾਜਨਿ ਸਨ ਦੇਹੁ ਬਖਾਨੀ ।** > "Listen you cocky Bheemchand, convey this message to all of the other Kings as well. > > **ਹਮ ਤੇ ਦਾਮ ਚਹਹਿ ਜੇ ਲੈਬੋ । ਖੜਗ ਧਾਰ ਸੋਂ ਕਰਿ ਹੈਂ ਦੈਬੋ ।੨।** > If you want to collect your tax I will give it you on the edge of my Kharag (sword). > > **ਤੋਮਰ ਤੀਰਨਿ ਸਾਂਗਨਿ ਅਨੀ । ਇਨ ਤੈ ਦੈ ਹੌ ਭੇਦੋ ਅਨੀ ।** > On the tip of our spears and arrows we will give you your tax as we chop you into pieces. > > **ਸ਼ਲਖ ਤੁਫੰਗਨਿ ਬਰਖਾ ਗੁਲਕਨਿ । ਇਨ ਤੇ ਪਰਖਨ ਕਰਿ ਧਨ ਅਨਗਨ ।੩।** > We will rain down your money with our bullets, come test the large amount of money we have set for you. > > **ਮੂਢ ਅਜਾਨ ਨ ਤੁਮ ਸਮ ਕੋਈ । ਚਹੈਂ ਦਰਬ ਲਿਹੁ ਸਨਮੁਖ ਹੋਈ ।** > No one is as much an idiot and fool as you, if you want your money come face to face with me. > > **ਬਜੈ ਲੋਹ ਸੋਂ ਲੋਹ ਜੁਝਾਰੇ । ਲੇਹੁ ਪਰਖ ਤਬਿ ਦਾਮ ਕਰਾਰੇ ।੪।** > Our warriors will ferociously clash iron with your iron, come then and test this money. > > *― Words of Sri Guru Gobind Singh, Gurpratap Suraj Prakash* <br> However, again, Azadism recognises this as an ideal and not something immediately practical in this time. Instead this should be viewed as a direction to head towards or an attitude towards taxes that should be (re-) adopted, rather than something that needs to be removed overnight. Therefore, keeping in mind this compromise, the rest of this section will now focus on how the minimal taxes left could be used to help the disadvantaged as well as other methods to directly help the poor. <br> *** Inevitably, in any competitive system there will be winners and losers. Although this manifesto has argued that such an approach will lead to greater innovation and prosperity overall, this does not negate the fact that the process is gradual. Along the way, many will experience setbacks, business failures, or periods of hardship. There will also be those who, for reasons beyond their control (such as disability or chronic illness), are simply unable to access the same opportunities as others. These individuals are at genuine risk of falling through the cracks. How then does a society built on small Government, whose role is largely limited to upholding the Non-Aggression Principle, provide the safety nets necessary to protect the disadvantaged and the unlucky? The following sections will explore alternatives to extensive State intervention that aims not sacrifice individual freedom in the name of “helping” the poor. ## Universal Basic Income (UBI) Although there are many different proposals for how Universal Basic Income could be implemented, in essence it means providing every citizen of a country with a regular income, regardless of their current earnings or employment status. The primary advantage of this model is that it creates a financial safety net for everyone. Whether someone has lost their job, seen their business fail, or suffered an unexpected health condition, UBI offers an income floor to meet basic human needs. Beyond this, UBI may also encourage people to take risks by starting new businesses or pursuing work more closely aligned with their personal interests and skills. What differentiates UBI from conventional benefit systems is that recipients do not lose it when they gain employment. Traditional welfare systems suffer from a significant flaw known as the “welfare trap”. If a person receives a job offer that pays only slightly more than the benefits they already collect, it is understandable for them to question why they should forfeit guaranteed income they get for no work for a job that may be less fulfilling and only marginally more lucrative. In some cases, they may even consider themselves worse off, especially when factoring in non-monetary costs such as time, stress, commuting, child care and more. Increasing benefit levels without structural reform only worsens this dynamic, as employment appears increasingly unattractive relative to staying on welfare. This is not necessarily because people are lazy or averse to hard work. These are rational calculations based on incentives, which any functioning economic model must acknowledge. People tend to act in ways that best serve their immediate situation. Therefore, UBI aims to mitigate this by maintaining the income regardless of employment status. Wages are therefore treated as an addition to their income, not a replacement for it. In this way, individuals are always better off working, since the incentive to remain on welfare is greatly reduced. If they decide to take the risk, they can also establish their own enterprises, contributing to the competition essential for a healthy and dynamic market economy. The fear of failure is diminished, as UBI remains in place as a fallback. For those who are simply unable to work, UBI again provides a necessary and unconditional support system. <br> ![[Welfar_Trap.png]] ![[UBI_Vs_Welfare_Trap.png]] <br> ## Negative Income Tax (NIT) Although UBI has become an increasingly popular idea in recent years, an alternative popularised by the economist Milton Friedman is the *Negative Income Tax* (NIT)[^41]. This model aims to promote the incentive to work, while also providing a crucial social safety net similar in purpose to UBI, but in a potentially more efficient way. Under a NIT system, rather than giving payments indiscriminately to all citizens regardless of income, only those earning below a certain threshold would receive support. Anyone whose income falls short of this threshold would be eligible for a negative tax rate. In other words, rather than paying tax to the State, they would receive a payment from it. The difference between their current income (including no income at all) and the national threshold would be calculated, and the NIT rate would be applied to this difference. Those earning above the threshold would pay a regular positive (flat) tax rate which finances this system. The table below shows the current income and final income of three people. You can see here that someone earning nothing is still able to receive an income. **Example of the NIT applied to different income levels** **‍Using threshold income of £30,000** | Person | Current Income | Tax Rate | Difference between threshold and current income | Difference with tax rate applied (deduction/payable) | Total Income After Tax | | ------ | -------------- | -------- | ----------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------- | | A | £0 | -50% | -£30,000 | +£15,000 | £15,000 | | B | £15,000 | -50% | -£15,000 | +£7,500 | £22,500 | | C | £50,000 | +13% | +£20,000 | -£2,600 | £47,400 | It is important to note that, under both UBI and NIT, these payouts should be designed to provide enough to live, but not necessarily to thrive. Otherwise, there is a serious risk of creating disincentives to work and perpetuating the same welfare traps that many current systems suffer from. If someone loses their job or is unable to work, the payment should be sufficient to cover basic necessities and essential insurances, but not to maintain a lifestyle equivalent to full employment. Crucially, however, it remains the recipient’s choice how they spend it. For most people, this baseline income alone is unlikely to satisfy their aspirations or lifestyle goals, which creates a natural incentive to work and earn more. In this scenario, total income after tax will always increase with additional earnings, thereby ensuring that the motivation to work is preserved. Unlike UBI, NIT payments are targeted solely at those with lower incomes, so money is directed where it is most needed. This avoids the inefficiency of distributing funds to high earners and the wealthy, for whom such payments would be inconsequential anyway. Another key advantage shared with UBI is that individuals from the lowest financial backgrounds gain a secure base from which to experiment with self-employment or starting their own businesses. For example, imagine Person A, who currently earns nothing but has the ambition to become self-employed and avoid working under others altogether. The NIT system enables them to take on this risk, as they have a safety net to fall back on if their venture fails. Alternatively, the initial capital required for their enterprise might exceed the welfare income they receive. In that case, they may be further encouraged to take up part-time work to earn additional funds. What this arrangement provides is a set of options and a means to engage in the market productively, alongside the security to learn through trial and error. Even if their first attempt fails, the lessons and experience gained are invaluable. They remain free to try again, refining their approach with each attempt. A common saying in the startup world is “fail fast” for this reason. Having an NIT/UBI encourages entrepreneurs in society to do so without the fear of starving to death if and when they fail. Instead failure becomes a key part of the process. It is how you iterate to success and how society fosters innovation. If, instead, a person prefers to detach entirely from financial pursuits and devote themselves to _Tapasya_ (spiritual discipline), they are also in a position to do so without fear of destitution. However, through genuine introspection, it is to be hoped that they would recognise living off resources taken from others without their express consent is not morally neutral. After all, both UBI and NIT are ultimately financed through taxation. This means that a Sadhu, Yogi or any other type of ascetic who depends upon these payments is, in effect, benefiting from a system of coercion. They should acknowledge this reality honestly and, wherever possible, work towards sustaining themselves in ways rooted in voluntary exchange. This could take the form of receiving donations freely given, or providing genuine value to others; perhaps by sharing insights gained during meditation, teaching, or offering guidance in return for money. No one has the inherent right to compel others to fund their personal lifestyle choices. Taxation is simply the mechanism by which such compulsion is systematised and enforced. Recognising this is not a denial of compassion, but an affirmation of the ethical consistency that Azadism demands. However, again, it is important to return to the practical reality at the heart of this discussion. While the moral concerns about living off taxation are serious and cannot be ignored, Azadism nonetheless recognises that some transitional form of support remains necessary to prevent hardship and suffering. Pragmatism requires compromise in the short term until voluntary alternatives mature and the cultural mindset shifts towards mutual aid and personal responsibility. Determining whether UBI or NIT is the better approach remains open to debate. Several factors must be considered, including the overall cost of each system. An NIT could prove less expensive, as payments are targeted to those below the threshold rather than universal. However, it could also create perverse incentives for individuals to underreport their income to qualify for higher payouts. There are ways to mitigate this risk through auditing and verification, but it is a challenge that must be acknowledged. For an Azadist economy, replacing existing welfare states with a basic income model appears to be a far better strategy for uplifting the poor and protecting the disadvantaged than maintaining the current labyrinth of conditional benefits. Not only would this approach provide a safety net, but it could also help reshape the relationship between work and life. People may choose to work fewer hours in shorter contracts, and companies could offer more part-time opportunities to cover total labour requirements. This shift could reduce the conventional 30- or 40-hour work week to something closer to 10 or 20 hours[^42]. The mental health benefits of such a transformation cannot be overstated. Improvements in stress levels and overall well-being were widely reported in previous UBI experiments[^43]. However, a common argument against basic income is that it could remove the incentive for individuals to take on undesirable jobs that are nonetheless crucial for society to function. If people are paid regardless of whether they work, it is reasonable to expect that many, acting in their own self-interest, would avoid roles they do not enjoy. In fact, it is equally reasonable for some individuals to choose not to work at all and to live purely off the basic income. In a free and fair market society, the laws of supply and demand may help to resolve this. If fewer people are willing to take on certain roles, employers will face labour shortages. To attract workers, they would have to increase wages, thereby creating a stronger incentive to fill those positions. Over time, a new equilibrium wage would emerge that reflects the changed balance of supply and demand in the labour market. The challenge, however, is that the return from the labour may not always offset the increased cost. In such cases, some organisations would inevitably fail if consumers are unwilling to pay higher prices for those goods or services. Yet this outcome is itself a form of market communication. It signals that certain enterprises are no longer worth the effort and resources are better directed elsewhere. This process frees capital and labour to encourage entrepreneurs to invest in other sectors or create new ventures. This issue can also be assessed from another angle. With the rise of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and automation, many of these menial or repetitive roles will inevitably be replaced by machines. If employers discover that technology can perform tasks more efficiently and cost-effectively, then a basic income may become crucial for those displaced. With this safety net in place, individuals would have the time and security to retrain and apply their skills elsewhere. Importantly, the rise of AI should not be viewed as inherently negative. The anxiety many feel today about technological change closely mirrors the fears present during the Industrial Revolution. At that time, horse carriage drivers and manual labourers felt threatened by the advent of engines and mechanised transport. Yet it is difficult to argue against the vast improvements that resulted. By almost every metric, the world became better off. Supply chains became more efficient, goods and services moved faster, trade expanded, and life expectancy and quality of life rose dramatically. Child mortality, poverty, and deaths during childbirth all declined as technology advanced. New industries and opportunities arose that were unimaginable before. For example, there were no taxi driver jobs before the invention of the car. What once appeared to be an intimidating machine has become so integrated into daily life that it is often taken for granted. In the same way, the rise of the internet has shifted millions away from physically demanding jobs into air conditioned offices, hotels, airports, and other sectors. Even in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic, many industries have embraced more flexible working styles, including remote work. Admittedly, many people during the Industrial Revolution suffered greatly and lacked any form of safety net. Today, recognising that we as a species may be on the threshold of another technological revolution, driven by artificial intelligence, quantum computing, and more, it is crucial to put adequate measures in place to protect those who will inevitably be affected. Some form of basic income like the NIT may be the way to provide this necessary support. This approach also aligns with the reality that as technology advances and new industries emerge, entrepreneurs and innovators are accelerating their wealth creation. The more millionaires and billionaires there are, the more overall wealth exists to be taxed, even at low, flat rates, which is key to attracting them to your economy rather than driving them away to competitor societies. In this way, a modest, broad-based tax base can help finance a UBI or NIT system for those who have not yet been able to benefit from these innovations, or who have been temporarily displaced by them. This again returns to the point discussed at the start of this section that economic inequality, or *economic diversity*, can ultimately work to everyone’s advantage if it is approached with the right attitude and clear-sighted policymaking, rather than with blind jealousy and resentment. A strategic society focuses on creating win-win scenarios, rather than framing wealth generation as a zero-sum game. Bringing this back into a potential roadmap for an Azadist State, the Government would initially combine a Negative Income Tax with a flat tax rate, in order to attract wealth, prosperity, and competition while also providing necessary social security[^44]. At first, the NIT may be offered as an alternative option to those seeking welfare. However, it must not be treated as an additional benefit layered on top of existing schemes. It should be a clear choice: either remain within the current welfare system or opt into the NIT. Otherwise, it simply becomes an extra expenditure rather than a more efficient replacement for conventional Government welfare. It is important to remember that the aim is to reduce reliance on State-provided services, which are funded through taxation and offered regardless of performance. For the reasons elaborated on in the previous section, such programmes inherently lack the incentive to remain efficient or effective. In contrast, a basic income model respects and empowers individuals to spend money directly in the market themselves, in turn facilitating private sector competition, innovation, and responsiveness. It avoids the pitfalls of relying on a single State monopoly or being limited to options selected by politicians or large corporations lobbying for Government contracts; practices that fundamentally undermine the free and fair market principles upon which Azadism is based. Over time, Government programmes would be entirely replaced by the NIT. For nations-states transitioning to an Azadist model, this process could begin by gradually reallocating budgets currently dedicated to traditional welfare systems. In doing so, uncompetitive, State-owned monopolies in the welfare sector would eventually be phased out. As the transition progresses, tax revenues collected from the rest of society would fund this simplified safety net. A modification to the conventional NIT model could be that, within an Azadist State, individuals born with disabilities would be eligible for a higher NIT rate. This adjustment could help offset the lack of equal opportunity that may arise from their circumstances. There are often unavoidable additional costs, including medical insurance, specialist equipment, and limited employment opportunities. Offering slightly higher support in such cases is both reasonable and reaffirms the importance of equality of opportunity. A clear drawback of any welfare system, however, is that it still relies on taxation. It also requires at least some level of Government bureaucracy to administer payments and verify eligibility. Although this bureaucracy would be far smaller and simpler than that of existing welfare states, the potential for inefficiency, incompetence, and corruption remains. Therefore, in line with Azadism’s principle of reducing coercive intervention wherever possible, even this system should be gradually phased out over the medium to long term. Initially, devolving responsibility to more local levels may help reduce these risks. For example, cities or counties could administer NIT payments directly, allowing for greater transparency and accountability. Over time, innovations in technology (perhaps in blockchain and decentralised ledgers, or even administration through AI agents) could offer entirely new ways to distribute support, verify eligibility, and maintain trust without relying on a centralised bureaucracy and minimising human error or corruption. But it may still be wise to have human oversight to account for technical errors. Eventually, as taxes themselves are reduced and ultimately eliminated in the long-term, the NIT would need to be replaced by voluntary alternatives. If people wish to continue this form of safety net, it would be sustained through donations rather than taxation. In this way, social responsibility remains intact, but it is rooted in free choice rather than compulsion. This reinforces Azadism’s core commitment to freedom, ethical consistency, and the rejection of forced philanthropy. Responsibility would return to the people themselves, who would be expected to support each other through compassion and voluntary exchange. However, this is a long-term vision. An Azadist state should not dismantle a basic income system entirely until the population has reached a broadly agreed level of prosperity and resilience. Lastly, before moving on, it is important to consider that if a Government wishes to provide a safety net in this way, it cannot operate with completely open borders or, more accurately, unrestricted access to citizenship. Immigration and citizenship must be controlled to ensure that the welfare system is not overwhelmed. Without such measures, a basic income programme would risk becoming unsustainable as more individuals arrive specifically to access guaranteed payments, without necessarily contributing to the tax base that funds them. You can not have it both ways. Either you have a open-citizenship and no welfare system, or you have restricted-citizenship and a welfare system. For most nation-states today, Azadism recommends a balance that skews towards the latter, however, there may be alternative society formats that may do it the other way round. This is not an argument against immigration itself, but rather an acknowledgement of practical limits during the transitional period. Once a society becomes sufficiently prosperous, such that the majority no longer rely on public support, such immigration restrictions can be relaxed or removed entirely. At that stage, the welfare system can be scaled back and eventually dismantled in favour of voluntary, decentralised alternatives. As discussed earlier, and will be covered more later: private charities, mutual aid networks, and community organisations can emerge to support the smaller number of people who may still need help. These approaches have the advantage of being more adaptive and responsive to individual circumstances. For example, a voluntary NIT-style system could be designed to reflect specific criteria agreed by donors, such as requiring recipients to abstain from tobacco or alcohol. In this way, Azadism not only promotes prosperity and freedom but also encourages responsibility and compassion that are grounded in voluntary action rather than compulsion. > “The problem of poverty is money…” > > ― Milton Friedman[^45] ## Minimum Wages Minimum wage laws are perhaps one of the most detrimental policies currently implemented that keeps the poor in poverty and removes their opportunity to progress. This statement may sound counterintuitive at first, since it is often assumed that imposing a minimum amount a company must pay employees automatically increases the incomes of low earners. However, there are two critical perspectives that are often overlooked. The first is from the business’s perspective. By enforcing this policy, the Government is, in effect, making it illegal to hire workers below a certain rate. This artificially increases the cost of labour and raises the cost of doing business. While larger or more established companies, many of which already employ higher-paid staff, can absorb these costs, smaller businesses are the ones that suffer the most. Take the example of a restaurant. If a waiter produces only £5 per hour in output but must legally be paid £10 per hour, the business simply cannot afford to keep them employed, let alone hire more staff. The chef may then be forced to take on additional tasks, which reduces their productivity and detracts from the specialised role they were hired to perform. All of this puts extra strain on the business. Higher minimum wages also make it harder for people to expand or start new enterprises. By raising the price of labour, businesses often have no choice but to increase prices to cover their costs. This makes small businesses less competitive compared to large corporations, which can afford higher wages more easily. It also harms the poor as consumers by making goods and services more expensive, further reducing their already limited purchasing power. Over time, greater reliance is placed on larger corporations, whose prices may not rise as much in comparison. From this perspective, minimum wages effectively protect big business and reduce competition by filtering out smaller enterprises from the market. If the goal were to increase dependence on corporate monopolies while destroying opportunities for entrepreneurs, then raising minimum wages would be precisely the right policy to pursue. The second perspective revolves around missed opportunity. If fewer businesses can afford to hire workers, the total number of employment opportunities naturally falls[^46]. Low-skilled workers, in particular, find themselves with fewer options. Without minimum wage restrictions, they could at least work for a modest wage, learn valuable skills on the job, and gain vital experience to progress further. With high minimum wages, this first step on the employment ladder is often removed entirely. Work experience is frequently the critical factor that enables progression to higher wages. But under these laws, low-skilled workers gain neither income nor experience. Often it is young people who are priced out of the labour market early, while simultaneously being encouraged to take on large university loans. This combination leaves many in financially precarious positions with fewer prospects. For other demographics from impoverished backgrounds, minimum wage laws remove any opportunity to earn at all, forcing them to rely on State welfare systems. It is even harder to start a business and grow it, given the increased barriers to entry already described. Furthermore, the rise of automation needs to be considered. By making human labour artificially expensive, businesses are incentivised to adopt technological alternatives that are more cost-effective. This process accelerates the displacement of low-skilled jobs, reducing workers’ bargaining power and often condemning them to permanent dependence on welfare. As discussed earlier, the safety net should instead come from the Negative Income Tax, which does not operate at the expense of the ease of doing business. In this way, small companies are not forced to provide a living wage, since the NIT can fill that role. After all this should be the State’s responsibility alongside private charity (and over time, solely the latter). With an NIT, employers and employees are free to negotiate contracts that suit both parties, allowing for a truer market price of labour to develop which is tailored for each circumstance. As the costs of doing business fall, more businesses will naturally emerge, creating more employment opportunities. This in turn translates into more competition for labour. If one employer offers too low wages and poor conditions, workers will have ample choice to take better offers elsewhere. In this environment, both employer and employee are protected and empowered. Businesses compete to attract staff by offering fair pay and working standards, while low-skilled workers gain more opportunities to find employment and progress. On the other side, businesses benefit from lower potential costs and the flexibility to offer wages that align with the true value of labour. This allows them to establish themselves more easily, and the resulting cost savings can be passed on to consumers in the form of lower prices. This is a genuine win-win situation. ## Private Charity & Civil Society Inevitably, there will always be some people who suffer hard times and fall through the cracks. By removing barriers to entry, increasing competition, and enabling affordable options through free and fair markets, a society that maximises prosperity would gradually develop. However, even after all the measures discussed so far, there will likely still be those who fall into hardship. For them, the final layer in the social safety net of an Azadist society is *private charities*. Anyone needing extra help can turn to these institutions, and others can choose to donate if they are passionate about supporting those causes. In addition, private charities have far stronger incentives to solve problems rather than perpetuate them. Their income is directly linked to performance rather than guaranteed through taxation. If a charity fails to deliver results, donors can simply stop contributing and support a competitor instead. In any competitive environment, organisations must continually demonstrate value or lose funding. By contrast, a State department tasked with addressing the same issues faces no such discipline. It does not need to compete or prove effectiveness, since its budget is guaranteed by taxpayers regardless of performance. When a government programme fails, the response is often to call for more funding, under the assumption that simply throwing more of the taxpayer’s money at the department would solve the problem. Michael Tanner, senior fellow at the CATO institute exposes the fallacy of government "aid" further. When he appeared before the US Congress, he testified that only around 30% of funds designated for entitlement programmes in the US actually reached the intended recipients. The remaining 70% went into the pockets of administrators. By comparison, private charities typically manage to deliver 82% of donations directly to those in need. Imagine a charity that only passed on 30% of contributions to its beneficiaries. Who in their right mind would choose to support it, especially when alternatives exist that achieve over 80% efficiency? The absurdity is even more striking when you consider that government welfare agencies have no need to spend time or money on fundraising, since their budgets are enforced through taxation. In contrast, private charities on average spend about 8% of their funds on raising donations, with the final 10% covering administration costs such as salaries[^47]. This is the difference between government and voluntary charity. It cannot be emphasised enough — these are precisely the reasons why Azadism rejects granting government monopolies over industries in an economy, especially in welfare. Furthermore, the role of private charities belongs to what is often called “civil society”. This term refers to all non-State institutions and organisations that make up a community. These are private initiatives that exist to satisfy social needs rather than to maximise profit. They include religious bodies, community centres, neighbourhood associations, and even the world’s oldest institution: family. The historical role of civil society should not be underestimated. For most of human history, it was these institutions that provided support for those in need. When a person faced hardship, their first recourse was not the State, but those around them: family, friends, neighbours, religious communities, and charitable associations. None of this required Government monopolies funded by coercive taxation. Removing the State as the only option restores the capacity of communities to solve problems themselves. The State can only ever provide support by taking taxpayers’ money, which is collected through the threat of violence and then spent according to the preferences and judgement of politicians and bureaucrats. How would anyone consider it moral for a person to steal from one individual in order to give to another, especially when that person keeps a portion of the money and then fails to translate the rest into sustainable solutions? Under Azadism, it is considered better to remove this middleman altogether. Help should be given directly whenever possible, or else channelled through intermediaries chosen voluntarily by individuals who are free to assess which organisations will make the best use of their contributions. Allowing Government to dominate this process not only undermines personal freedom but also reduces the effectiveness of support for those in need. Competing charities, motivated to innovate and to find real solutions, are far better suited to this role. This approach restores the ability of individuals to decide where their money will be most effective and, if they prefer, to take action themselves. Eliminating taxation in this process would also leave people with more resources to contribute voluntarily to causes they care about. Under Azadism, it is considered better to remove the middle man that is the public sector and help directly. Or if we want to use an intermediary then a system in which we are free to choose who may best fulfil this function is the best course of action. By having a Government in the way of this process, not only does one condemn their own personal freedom in how to help others, but they also hamper the ability to give effective support to the needy. Competing charities, who have an incentive to look for solutions are far better suited at this role than Government is under Azadist logic. This way gives options to the people in order to choose where they think their own money will be most useful, as well as give them the choice to actual go out and help themselves. Getting rid of taxation in this process, would also naturally leave them with more money to commit to these causes as well. The case for forced charity through State theft is weak in comparison. *** This section has outlined the overall social security safety net envisioned for an Azadist society. For Azadists, a whole new mindset is adopted in the attitudes we hold towards Government as a caregiver. Rather than behaving like children, we break the paternal relationship many have granted the State. For the Khalsa in particular, we already recognise our father as Dhan Sri Guru Gobind Singh and our mother as Aad Shakti Mata Sahib Devan. Why, then, should we elevate Governments to the same level? Whether in the form of civil society, private charities, or individual initiative, the State need not provide any more of a safety net than what has been described here, namely the Negative Income Tax in its initial phase. This approach helps mitigate the risk of the Government becoming overly relied upon, which inevitably allows it to grow in power and influence. As discussed in the previous sections, a Government that becomes too large and takes on too many roles ultimately undermines the quality of life within a society. People should recognise that the real power rests with them as individuals and as private actors separate from the State. With that realisation comes the responsibility to take ownership of their own lives and contribute to the wellbeing of those around them. The Azadist tax system is designed as a compromise between the coercive nature of taxation and the importance of protecting individual choice about how to spend one’s resources. It also provides a transitional level of security at the outset, while the private sector—that is, ordinary people—gradually develops the capacity to assume these responsibilities. In the long-term plan of an Azadist State, even taxation itself should eventually be phased out, replaced by voluntary contributions to support any remaining Government functions if people so choose. When the Government stops taxing, it is no longer a public, but now private entity. Just like the rest of the private sector, if it wishes to persist it must provide enough value that people are voluntarily willing to pay for. If it can’t then people should be free to choose from a variety of alternative service providers. In this way, even the Goverment itself is eventually privatised and the people are liberated. This balance between prosperity and safety, while always trending towards greater freedom, is at the heart of the Azadist vision. It must be stressed that the withdrawal of Government services should be gradual and carefully managed over the long term. Conditions should be continually assessed to ensure that sufficient alternatives are in place for those who currently depend on State support. > “Clearly we are doing something wrong. Throwing money at the problem has neither reduced poverty nor made the poor self-sufficient. It is time to re-evaluate our approach to fighting poverty. We should focus less on making poverty more comfortable and more on creating the prosperity that will get people out of poverty” > > ― Michael Tanner The emphasis on equal opportunity over equal outcomes forms a major part of Azadism. Promoting the former rather than the latter by getting the Government out of markets, removing its ability to create barriers to entry, and ending its role in establishing unfair competition by granting or becoming monopolies, naturally leads to a society in which anyone can work to achieve their own goals. When opportunity is freed from artificial constraints, prosperity follows, and fewer people need to rely on welfare at all[^48]. When we look at the ten most charitable nations in the world today, we find that, on average, just over 50% of their populations give to charity[^49]. Following this trend, with lower taxes and more disposable income, people would have even greater capacity to fund the causes they care about. Azadism requires that the Negative Income Tax system be removed only when the average income of the population has risen above the initial threshold level. This gives time for charities and voluntary organisations to grow organically so that, as the nation transitions from developing to developed status, the necessary private institutions are already in place and ready to support those in need. To conclude this section, it is essential to place a repeated emphasis on the responsibility of the people themselves to take action. We need only look to our Gurus for the highest example of this principle. The Gurus did not collect offerings from the Sangat to give higher taxes to the Mughals so that the State could dispense charity on their behalf. Instead, they established Langars to feed the world directly. They did not coerce people to contribute, but encouraged all to donate Dasvandh through their own free choice. They did not rely on the State to provide for the vulnerable, but took up this responsibility themselves. Similarly, Azadism calls on individuals to take personal responsibility rather than deferring to the State. It should be every Sikh’s desire to engage in Seva with their own hands. Why pass this sacred duty to a State monopoly with a track record of greed, corruption, and deception? In modern times, there are many who have embodied this spirit and followed the example of the Guru. Bhagat Puran Singh did not wait for any Government to act. He took the initiative himself and, together with like-minded individuals, established Pingalwara to serve those in need[^50]. Likewise, Ravi Singh from Khalsa Aid mobilised support as a private individual to provide relief in regions devastated by war and natural disaster[^51]. Greater freedom must be secured for people like these, who represent the true embodiment of Azadist principles in private charity. And perhaps one of the greatest inspirations comes from the Sakhi of Bhai Kanhaiya, who gave water to dying soldiers on both sides of a battlefield, allies and enemies alike. When questioned, he explained that he saw no difference between them. For this, he was commended by Guru Gobind Singh as one who had grasped the true essence of Sikhi[^52]. Finally, as promised earlier at the end of the section on Langar, Dasvandh and Choice, please consider this final Sakhi to conclude this section. During the times of Guru Nanak, there existed a public worker for the Mughals named *Ganggu Bhagu*. Through extortion and dubious means, he raised funds to conduct a *Śrāddha* ritual aimed at venerating his dead ancestors. As part of this he also offered free food, paid for through the funds he stole. Maharaj was passing by at the time and was also invited to partake in the offerings, however Guru Ji refused after inquiring about the situation. The following Shabad was then revealed in response[^53]: > **ਜੇ ਮੋਹਾਕਾ ਘਰੁ ਮੁਹੈ ਘਰੁ ਮੁਹਿ ਪਿਤਰੀ ਦੇਇ ॥** > The thief robs a house, and offers the stolen goods to his ancestors. > > **ਅਗੈ ਵਸਤੁ ਸਿਞਾਣੀਐ ਪਿਤਰੀ ਚੋਰ ਕਰੇਇ ॥** > In the world hereafter, this is recognised, and his ancestors are considered thieves as well. > > **ਵਢੀਅਹਿ ਹਥ ਦਲਾਲ ਕੇ ਮੁਸਫੀ ਏਹ ਕਰੇਇ ॥** > The hands of the go-between are cut off; this is the Lord’s justice. > > **ਨਾਨਕ ਅਗੈ ਸੋ ਮਿਲੈ ਜਿ ਖਟੇ ਘਾਲੇ ਦੇਇ ॥੧॥** > O Nanak, in the world hereafter, that alone is received, which one gives to the needy from his own earnings and labour ||1|| > > ― Sri Guru Granth Sahib, Ang 472 Just as Bhagu was taught this lesson by the Guru, we ourselves must also heed this message. No matter how pure the intent, and whatever charitable cause it is aimed at, the entire effort is invalidated when the funds used are produced through coercion of other people’s resources. Only that is considered acceptable where something is done out of one’s own earnings and labour. Forcible redistribution of wealth is immoral under these circumstances. Instead, Azadism looks at incentive-based solutions that encourage charity and personal responsibility in helping those in need. This attitude of stealing from certain groups in order to satisfy the needs of others is inherently flawed. The only exception to this is if those individuals we take from are themselves thieves and thus are returning what is rightfully owned by another. Additionally, merely being wealthy does not automatically mean that wealth was achieved through exploitation. In a free and fair market society, where the roles of the public and private sectors are completely independent of one another, the only way someone can accumulate wealth and riches is by providing a product or service that others are freely willing to pay for. If Government officials like Bhagu are stealing and exploiting, then it is justified to put an end to this in order to maintain the NAP. A thief is one who takes what isn’t theirs. Just because it is politicians and the State doing the taking, it does not exempt them from moral judgement. If any other private actor did what the Government does, they would be arrested and jailed. It is only under the threat of violence, and the fact that the Government is able to kill or kidnap you so easily, does this plundering through tax continue to exist (and was even set up in the first place). In return for protection, we are persuaded to give in and accept the status quo. However, we forget to consider that often the greatest threat to a citizenry is not other citizens — it is their own Governments. ## Other Useful Resources #### Inequality & Poverty Link: [The Most Persistent Economic Fallacy of All Time! - YouTube](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hrg1CArkuNc) Link: [John Stossel and the fixed Pie Fallacy - YouTube](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGJ-xHSp5Gc) His tone is somewhat condescending but his points are solid. John Strossel has a good interview here too: Link: [John Stossel - YouTube](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_oeBBU3xv4) #### Taxes Link: [Fixing The Way We Tax | Hoover Institution](https://www.hoover.org/research/fixing-way-we-tax-0) Link: [The Case Against Higher Tax Rates | Hoover Institution](https://www.hoover.org/research/case-against-higher-tax-rates) #### UBI Link: [The Impact of a Basic Income on Labour Supply and Work Performance (wur.nl)](https://edepot.wur.nl/373885) Link: [Mapped: Where Basic Income Has Been Tested Worldwide (visualcapitalist.com)](https://www.visualcapitalist.com/map-basic-income-experiments-world/) Link: [Everywhere basic income has been tried, in one map: Kenya; Iran; Alaska; Stockton, California; and more - Vox](https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2020/2/19/21112570/universal-basic-income-ubi-map) A similar scheme to NIT already exists in the USA in the form of Earned Income Tax Credits. However there are a few key differences: Link: [Bank of England Staff Working Paper No. 903](https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/-/media/boe/files/working-paper/2021/the-earned-income-tax-credit-targeting-the-poor-but-crowding-out-wealth.pdf) #### Minimum Wages Link: [IZA World of Labor - Employment effects of minimum wages](https://wol.iza.org/articles/employment-effects-of-minimum-wages/long) Link: [Six Countries with No Minimum Wage | Nomad Capitalist](https://nomadcapitalist.com/global-citizen/countries-no-minimum-wage/) Link: [The American Welfare State: How We Spend Nearly $1 Trillion a Year Fighting Poverty - and fail.pdf (cato.org)](https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/PA694.pdf) ‍ #### Private Charity Link: [Charity vs. Taxation – What is the Difference? - YouTube](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82NPMM85B6o) Link: [Private Charity Beats One-Size-Fits-All Government (reason.com)](https://reason.com/2020/12/02/private-charity-beats-one-size-fits-all-government/) Link: [The 4 Ways to Judge Minimum Wage Laws - Foundation for Economic Education (fee.org)](https://fee.org/articles/the-4-ways-to-judge-minimum-wage-laws/) ## Footnotes [^1]: **Link: [Income inequality measures (nih.gov)](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2652960/)** [^2]: **Link: [Inequality - Poverty gap - OECD Data](https://data.oecd.org/inequality/poverty-gap.htm)** **Link: [GDP and spending - Gross domestic product (GDP) - OECD Data](https://data.oecd.org/gdp/gross-domestic-product-gdp.htm)** [^3]: **Link: [The Likelihood of Experiencing Relative Poverty over the Life Course (plos.org)](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0133513)** [^4]: **Link: [Relative vs Absolute Poverty: Defining Different Types of Poverty (habitatforhumanity.org.uk)](https://www.habitatforhumanity.org.uk/blog/2018/09/relative-absolute-poverty/)** [^5]: **Link: [Evidence shows significant income mobility in the US – 73% of Americans were in the ‘top 20%’ for at least a year | American Enterprise Institute - AEI](https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/evidence-shows-significant-income-mobility-in-the-us-73-of-americans-were-in-the-top-20-for-at-least-a-year/)** [^6]: **Link: [(PDF) The Life Course Dynamics of Affluence (researchgate.net)](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/271598246_The_Life_Course_Dynamics_of_Affluence)** [^7]: **Link: [The Zero-Sum Fallacy | Povertycure](https://www.povertycure.org/learn/issues/charity-hurts/zero-sum-fallacy)** [^8]: **Link: [Gapminder](https://www.gapminder.org/)** Definitely take some time to go through some of the “Upgrade your worldview” surveys here. Hans Rosling has some great Ted Talks too available on YouTube or here: **Link: [Hans Gosling - TED Talks](https://www.ted.com/talks?sort=relevance&q=gapminder)** [^9]: **Link: [Optimistic facts and charts that show the world is getting much, much better - Vox](https://www.vox.com/2014/11/24/7272929/global-poverty-health-crime-literacy-good-news)** Often it is a good idea to put the common pessimistic narrative that is pushed by media into context. This isn’t to ignore present issues or to say that things will not get worse, but it is important to understand that things can exist in both micro and macro cycles. Focusing too much on the short-term and recent events leads to a very bleak view of the world and where we are headed. Sometimes putting things into perspective and taking a look at the big picture is helpful. Matt Ridley’s book *Rational Optimist* highlights many of these examples in more detail. You can hear his Google talk here: **Link: [The Rational Optimist | Matt Ridley | Talks at Google - YouTube](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qMxe73iJPbo&list=PLxUfDdw5RjEJc_uuNrkXyNgUHonoTP6L8&index=6)** And his interview with psychologist Jordan Peterson here: **Link: [Rational Optimism | Matt Ridley - Jordan B Peterson Podcast S4 E5 - YouTube](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjqEMqOyUr8)** [^10]: **Link: [Senator Sanders and the Fixed Pie Fallacy | Cato at Liberty Blog](https://www.cato.org/blog/senator-sanders-fixed-pie-fallacy)** [^11]: **Link: [Chaaban Wealth Management Group - The rule of 72 (rbcwealthmanagement.com)](https://ca.rbcwealthmanagement.com/dian.chaaban/blog/1566725-The-rule-of-72)** **Link: [Rule of 72 Definition, Formula, & Calculation (investopedia.com)](https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/ruleof72.asp)** [^12]: It is crucial that young people especially learn about how to best manage their finances. The earlier you start the better opportunity you will have. [^13]: **Link: [Population Control Isn't the Answer to Climate Change. Capitalism Is. - YouTube](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xkXjj6dalM)** [^14]: Azadism is not blinded by hatred for an enemy and instead seeks to learn from them. It is only by understanding the enemy, can you find their weaknesses, and perhaps more importantly your _own_. How were they successful? How did they fail? Learning from the enemy is crucial in developing a strategy to defeat them. The enemy is one of the greatest Ustaads. Sri Guru Gobind Singh Maharaj even seems to praise Auranga in his Zafarnamah too. Perhaps the Guru did this to help educate his Khalsa to similarly show respect to an enemy as means of being strategic (page 26): **Link: [ZAFARNAMAA WITH PERSIAN.pdf (archive.org)](https://ia600303.us.archive.org/24/items/ZafarnamaWithMeanings/ZafarnamaWithMeanings.pdf)** [^15]: Khushwant Singh’s *A history of the Sikhs* details this and why it never materialised in Chapter 17 - _Dreams of Sindh and the Sea_. Who knows what the state of Panjab would have been today if he had succeeded in his ambitions [^16]: **Link: [The Position of the Zamindars in the Mughal Empire - S. Nurul Hasan, 1964 (sagepub.com)](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/001946466400100401?journalCode=iera)** [^17]: It is likely this restriction of freedom actively stunted the growth of the US and harmed their rate of progress. By actively suppressing a nation's labour and expertise, the rate of innovation would not reach its full potential. [^18]: Again, it must not be forgotten that these freedoms were catered towards the invaders, not the enslaved or the natives. [^19]: Patents are essentially property rights over ideas. It is questionable whether these are acceptable under an Azadist framework since they must be backed by the state and restrict competition and innovation. Further debate is encouraged in this however. Patents were originally granted by Kings to grant exclusive rights to certain subjects (essentially a monopoly backed by the monarchy). [^20]: It is important to add that the competitive banking system in the US (and elsewhere) was ruined through the introduction of central banking and monetary policies that set interest rates unilaterally via a central planner and not through market forces. Azadism does not advocate for central banking, or any type of monopoly in this sector — especially not a State backed-one. Again, this will be expanded elsewhere outside this manifesto. [^21]: **Link: [2021 Index of Economic Freedom | The Heritage Foundation](https://www.heritage.org/index/about)** [^22]: **Link: [Jordan Peterson Talks Gun Control, Angry Men and Women CEOs | Time](https://time.com/5175974/jordan-peterson-12-rules-book-interview/)** [^23]: Validity of such thinking could be put under scrutiny, as with many other of his ideas. Especially those ideas presented in the Communist Manifesto which was put together by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. A specific critique of some of the ideas he presents is beyond the scope of this particular publication, and so may be expanded upon elsewhere (particularly Marx's 10 measures he outlines in chapter 2). In the meantime, I encourage you to see Jordan Peterson’s critique here: **Link: [Jordan Peterson's Critique of the Communist Manifesto - YouTube](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_MXSE3wUT4)** **Link: [Azadism Vs Socialism](https://coda.io/@bunga-azaadi/theories-ideologies/azadism-vs-socialism-7)** [^24]: However, please see the following for a more comprehensive review of this topic that goes into further details regarding inequality. If we want to solve some of the issues associated with this, then it is imperative we understand the problem accurately and dispel misconceptions. The following lecture is a great breakdown of this topic by Professor Antony Davies with Learn Liberty. **Link: [Prof. Antony Davies: 5 Myths About Inequality - YouTube](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jtxuy-GJwCo)** Profit when obtained in a **free-market** environment is key here. [^25]: **Link: [Can You Be Spiritual and Rich At The Same Time? [Podcast Clips] @BoS TV - YouTube](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYtQgITXY4M&list=PLxUfDdw5RjEIB4aWVJWYvltl5uey7h-Ej&index=23)** [^26]: Although, Economist Art Laffer has a unique, but perhaps more accurate spin on the Robin Hood myth (listen from 12:20 onwards): **Link: [Why Raising Taxes Destroys The Economy - Art Laffer - YouTube](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GChpnX44_Ns&t=298s)** [^27]: **Link: [Moving my business to Ireland (thinkbusiness.ie)](https://www.thinkbusiness.ie/articles/moving-business-to-ireland/)** [^28]: **Link: [Tax_Rates_and_Migration_Davies_Pulito_WP1131.pdf (mercatus.org)](https://www.mercatus.org/system/files/Tax_Rates_and_Migration_Davies_Pulito_WP1131.pdf)** [^29]: This is not just theory, as this is already the case in many of the developed nations that are increasingly imposing these policies. From the US many high-income earners have moved to Puerto Rico for example, in order to avoid the extortionately high tax rates. “Nomad Capitalist” is run by an entrepreneur who helps provide information and advice to (primarily wealthy) individuals looking to escape exploitation at the hands of the government seeking to take their wealth. Their very motto is “Go where you a treated best”. **Link: [Nomad Capitalist | Offshore Tax and Lifestyle Strategies for Entrepreneurs](https://nomadcapitalist.com/)** (Also check out their YouTube channel) [^30]: “Trickle Down” Theory and “Tax Cuts for the Rich” - Thomas Sowell, page 3, available here: **Link: [Sowell_TrickleDown.indd (hoover.org)](https://www.hoover.org/sites/default/files/uploads/documents/Sowell_TrickleDown_FINAL.pdf)** [^31]: **Link: [Prof. Antony Davies: 10 Myths About Government Debt - YouTube](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPjrFjAxwlw&list=PLxUfDdw5RjEIB4aWVJWYvltl5uey7h-Ej&index=20)** Myth #5 and #6, further reinforces Sowell’s argument specifically. The rest of the lectures that he did with Learn Liberty are invaluable too. [^32]: Alternatively, consumption or land-revenue taxes may be more in line with Azadist principles (at least for the beginning), however this may be explored in later publications or discussions. [^33]: **Link: [Tax History Project -- Milton Friedman Dead at 94](http://www.taxhistory.org/thp/readings.nsf/ArtWeb/629A48DB6BB63EDD8525730800064E63?OpenDocument)** [^34]: **Link: [Free Rider Problem Definition (investopedia.com)](https://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/free_rider_problem.asp)** [^35]: *The World Says No to War: Demonstrations against the War on Iraq* by Stefaan Walgrave and Dieter Rucht, available here: **Link: [The World Says No to War (uantwerpen.be)](https://medialibrary.uantwerpen.be/oldcontent/container2608/files/Walgrave%20Rucht%20(2010)%20-%20The%20world%20says%20no%20to%20war.pdf)** [^36]: Admittedly, direct taxes are not the only way those things can be funded, as the Government can take on debt and use disastrous policies to “print more money”, which is then acts as an indirect tax through inflation. Azadism rejects central banks and even legal tender laws. These must be abolished and never allowed to arise in order to establish and maintain an Azadist society. [^37]: This manifesto will not detail the pros and cons of each. A future post may go into this further, or a member of the Sangat can take on this Seva. Regardless, debate is encouraged specifically in these areas especially. [^38]: Although, under the definitions that Azadism is working with, this would not be classed as a tax anyway. [^39]: Even other traditions like Christianity saw them as morally deficient and in need of spiritual support: **Link: [Why does the Bible speak so negatively about tax collectors? | GotQuestions.org](https://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-tax-collectors.html)** [^40]: **Link:** ["Collect your tax...on the edge of my Kharag" Guru Gobind Singh Ji - Suraj Prakash (manglacharan.com)](https://manglacharan.com/1843+Suraj+Prakash/Response+to+Bhimchand) Again, it must be stressed that although the Guru is indeed representing the supreme ideal of Azadism here, it is not strategic as of right now to replicate the Guru exactly the same way today (although the author would give great respect to those that do take a strong stance like this now). Instead we need to recognise the principle here, that if the Khalsa claims to be sovereign, why then should it promote taxes? Instead, work towards reducing this and removing support from all those who aim to increase this State-sanctioned theft. The first step in doing so is at the very least recognising that taxes is something we want to reduce not increase. No true sovereign pays tax to another. [^41]: Although heavily popularised by Milton Friedman, the idea did precede him as it was first attributed to the British writer and Liberal Party politician Juliet Rhys-Williams in the early 1940s. [^42]: **Link: [Work-life balance: Why we should only work 15 hours a week (smh.com.au)](https://www.smh.com.au/business/workplace/worklife-balance-why-we-should-only-work-15-hours-a-week-20170817-gxyfk2.html)** [^43]: **Link: [Universal basic income seems to improve employment and well-being | New Scientist](https://www.newscientist.com/article/2242937-universal-basic-income-seems-to-improve-employment-and-well-being/)** [^44]: As of writing this manifesto, the author is currently leaning towards NIT being the better system for these initial stages. Although, given a compelling enough argument or observing results of new experiments, this opinion may change. Alternatively, a new method entirely could be proposed to provide a basic income, which is also absolutely fine. This philosophy will adapt towards the best, most up-to-date reasoning of the time given that the principles of Azadism are maintained. This approach is inspired by the Guru’s themselves with how they applied Sikhi. The actual principles must remain solid, but the techniques can be fluid. One example of this is the principle of remaining Shastardhari, where the technique to do this is not restricted to just a knife or sword, but axes, spears and guns too. Even a 4 man surface-to-air missile system is acceptable. This dichotomy is also seen in the different Sampardaye. Each one of them is just a different technique of expressing Sikhi. [^45]: **Link: [Milton Friedman on Healthcare and the Poor - YouTube](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHv4eUJfodA)** [^46]: **Link: [Myth or Measurement: What Does the New Minimum Wage Research Say about Minimum Wages and Job Loss in the United States? | NBER](https://www.nber.org/papers/w28388?utm_campaign=ntwh&utm_medium=email&utm_source=ntwg2)** “Our key conclusions are: (i) there is a clear preponderance of negative estimates in the literature; (ii) this evidence is stronger for teens and young adults as well as the less-educated; (iii) the evidence from studies of directly-affected workers points even more strongly to negative employment effects; and (iv) the evidence from studies of low-wage industries is less one-sided.” [^47]: **Link: [Private Charity versus Government Entitlements (manufacturedhomepronews.com)](https://www.manufacturedhomepronews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/PrivateCharityVersusGovernmentEntitlementsSoftwareMetricsDailyBusinessNewsMHProNews.pdf)** [^48]: As the old saying goes: “Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day, teach a man how to fish and you feed him for a lifetime” Unfortunately the wisdom of the statement has been lost amongst those promoting equal outcomes over equal opportunity. They understand this no more clearer than Bantu Holomisa had said it… **Link: [Bantu Holomisa - you give a poor man a fish...... - YouTube](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ncRi8bZL1q4)** [^49]: **Link: [Most Charitable Countries 2021 (worldpopulationreview.com)](https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/most-charitable-countries)** [^50]: **Link: [Pingalwara Charitable Society Amritsar - Pingalwara](https://pingalwara.org/)** [^51]: **Link: [KhalsaAid](https://www.khalsaaid.org/)** [^52]: When the distinction between “I” and “other” is diminished, you will naturally be concerned for the well-being of others as much as your own. Realise that helping others is helping yourself. [^53]: Page 299 of PDF, available here: **Link: [Gurbani Senthia Pothi 4 | SGGS Academy](https://sggsacademy.com/download/gurbani-senthia-pothi-4/)**