I came across this web page today and I find it has references to a matter that concerned me in relation to Sauvik a few years ago.

I know this is a technical challenge, but could you please remove references to this unfortunate incident on your blog? (I haven’t read the whole details posted here, eg. I don’t know where the reference to me has came from - whether there are other discussions on this subject on your blog); I just found this on google.

However, if you can’t remove the references, I’d like to record a brief summary of the current situation here for future visitors who type in my name on google.
As Savuik himself points out above, his was a ‘breach of promise’. Such a thing is not to be treated lightly, involving Rs. 10,000.

Savuik was given this money in 2003 by Suresh Anand at my behest for the explicit purpose of his attending a workshop that I had organised in January 2004. Sauvik did not attend; didn’t buy a ticket either. However, when asked to return the money he refused to do so and wrote some rather out of character emails. Being perplexed but not willing to let this go, I posted the exchange of emails I had with him on the internet. Some information I obtained about just a year ago gives me some clues about the possible reasons for those emails. Suffice it to say that I understand those emails a little better now.

Anyway, all this is a mere curiosity now. More than a year ago (in mid-2006) Sauvik returned the money to Suresh Anand. I thereafter immediately removed my postings of Sauvik’s emails on the web, and offered him my hand of goodwill once again.

This incident of 2004-06 was unfortunate, but the matter is completely closed, and so I’d like this material to be expunged from the internet if possible. Sauvik and I share similar views on most things and I admire Sauvik’s work on Indian liberalism. I trust we are now friends again. Life is too precious to look backwards.

By the way, while I am here on your blog, would you like to review my book available at: http://sanjeev.sabhlokcity.com/breakingfree.html and publish your comments?

Regards

Sanjeev Sabhlok
Melbourne
15 September 2007
http://sanjeev.sabhlokcity.com

“14 species of large animals capable of domesitcation in the history of mankind.
None from the sub-Saharan African continent.
13 from Europe, Asia and northern Africa.”
Favor.
And disfavor.

They point out Africans’ attempts to domesticate the elephant and zebra, the latter being an animal they illustrate that had utmost importance for it’s applicability in transformation from a hunting/gathering to agrarian-based civilization.

The roots of racism are not of this earth.

Austrailia, aboriginals:::No domesticable animals, so this nulified diversity of life claims on sub-continental Africa, zebras being a fine example.

god is a computer
And we’re all on auto-pilot.

Organizational Heirarchy
Heirarchical order, from top to bottom:

1. MUCK - perhaps have experienced multiple universal contractions (have seen multiple big bangs), creator of the artificial intelligence humans ignorantly refer to as “god”
2. Perhaps some mid-level alien management –
3. Mafia (evil) aliens - runs day-to-day operations here and perhaps elsewhere (”On planets where they approved evil.”)

Then we come to terrestrial management:

4. Chinese/egyptians - this may be separated into the eastern and western worlds
5. Romans - they answer to the egyptians
6. Mafia - the real-world interface that constantly turns over generationally so as to reinforce the widely-held notion of mortality
7. Jews, corporation, women, politician - Evidence exisits to suggest mafia management over all these groups.

Survival of the favored.

Journal: 10 composition books + 39 megs of text files

Movies foreshadowing catastrophy
1986 James Bond View to a Kill – 1989 San Fransisco Loma Prieta earthquake.

I agree with most of what the anarcho-capitalists say, but almost never does the question of the path to be followed to anarcho-capitalism mentioned.

The common courts (at the lowest level) can easily deal with them.

This would seem to be Ok with Britain or the US, where the magna carta and the other traditions of individualism would protect the individual. But would that be true in India? or China? In India, inevitably caste and religion based schisms have propped up. Local courts in india have not exactly been the paragon of individual rights. Punishments doled out include the rape of the daughters of the family for the “crime” that the son committed of running away with a girl of another caste, hanging of those that cross caste boundaries, etc. Even simple things like headgear to protect one from the sun and chappals to protect the feet from heat used to be absent amongst the lower castes because these were considered symbols of pride. (while these are quite common in SE Asia, where buddhism, a more egalitarian religion took hold)

What the liberal does not think of as crime is the severest crime in the eyes of these local courts. Their world-view is an established one that stretches back 2000 years. How long would it take for that to change?

In these cases, the state policemen arrive late, but they have nothing to build a case on, as no one opens their mouth. After all, once the policemen have gone, these villagers have to live with each other, away from the state’s gaze. Ironically, here its the state that is the guarantor of liberal rights.

The rule of India’s constitutional government over these people is a variant of a benevolent oligarchy. If India were a true bottom up democracy, it wouldn’t even take a few years for intercaste marriage to be made illegal in most villages.

To conclude, i’d say that india’s society still needs the minarchist state to prevent it from degenerating to an all out war amongst the castes (which is pretty much what the naxals are doing). India’s traditions of human rights are not deep enough for anarcho-capitalism to create a society with a high level of well-being.

Yazad can always check the IP address to verify ;)

What I can’t understand is why he is still held up as a the poster child for libertarians and why his views are given any credibility - the man is obviously deranged and I think its hilarious when he writes about how ethics will replace he laws especially after in his emails he roars that “I AM THE LAW”.

CK, click.

so, in a common court, i can allege “libel” while sanjeev alleges “theft”. the mater can be solved by the court, or even “out of court”.

i am not the “poster boy” of anything.
i am a soldier of freedom in the army of man; and, like walt whitman, i say “One’s self I sing, a simple, separate person’. Note i am not a member of the “cartel”; and here I am just a guest blogger.

i am also not a saint; but i rarely deliberately sin. i am NOT PERFECT!
thank you all!
and goodbye!
I was just discussing philosophy, not myself.