Gallery
bunga_azaadi_logo
Kisaan Morcha
Share
Explore

dot_icon
The Azadist Approach

How could Azadism be applied here?
To start with, let’s first give the definition of Azadism:
Azadism:
an economic and political system that encourages limiting the role of government to upholding the Non-Aggression Principle and preserving property rights. This takes the form of four main roles, namely: National Defence, Policing, Justice System and Tax Administration. The control over a nation’s economy is gradually transferred away from state control and to the people directly, where both parts are adequately independent of each other. Initially administered under a decentralised Khalsa confederacy of Misls, over time the role of the government can be further reduced and replaced entirely by the private sector.
The full ideology is outlined in the Azadist Manifesto
.
The Azadist approach would prioritise breaking that link between the public and private sector entirely. Amendments would need to made to constitutionally outlaw lobbying and corporate political activity with harsh punishments for anyone who violates this. This would truly set the standard in removing barriers to entry and inhibits the ability for firms to use the government apparatus as a tool to stifle free and fair market competition.

Asset 10.svg
At the same time a basic income scheme would be implemented, replacing the reliance on a minimum price to provide living wages. Azadism currently favours a Negative Income Tax (NIT) approach to this where all those earning beneath a certain threshold amount (likely the median income) would be subject to a negative income tax rate
. This wouldn’t replace MSP straight away, instead it would be offered as an alternative to begin with, state by state. Since this is paid for regardless of output or employment, the pressure is lifted off the farmers from producing specific crops. Instead, now the laws of supply and demand can actually work as farmers are freer to comfortably experiment with production to actually meet the consumer demand since their living wage is not so dependent on what they grow.
This could also help re-establish incentives away from monoculture farming techniques of unsustainable crops using ridiculous amounts of cancer-causing pesticides. Instead, more sustainable techniques like polyculture farming
can become more accessible. As well as this, the farmers would be in a far safer position to invest in newer technologies such as those that use less water like hydroponics or vertical farming methods.
Reasonable concern can be raised that farmers can’t adapt to demand as quick, it takes months to grow crops. Hence why these measures should help incentivise farmers to stop growing so much of the same crops for acres and acres. Instead, perhaps this way they will realise a greater benefit in scaling down and diversifying their risk with polyculture farming techniques. Many different crop types can be grown to test the market. Over time, a sense of the demand may re-establish as the farmers get used to a system where the government doesn’t just buy whatever crops they incentivise them to grow, regardless if the people actually need it.
Secondly, by diversifying like this, the crop-income security goes both ways. If they grow a crop that is in demand but not everyone grew it, they would now be able to charge a higher price for it (limited supply + high demand = raise the price). This would also help offset any produce that had a dip in demand that season.
Alternatively, income security can also be achieved through accurate and solid contracts with buyers. However, it is up to them to understand the terms written in it and clearly outline what is being exchanged. There is not a need for government to step in here and potentially bias legal disputes in favour of one party over another. Contracts can be drawn up by dedicated private lawyers and third-parties whose income does not depend on taxpayers money, but their market reputations as fair and reliable arbitrators and contact designers. This way they must work hard to uphold their reputation lest they lose their source of income and potentially face legal repercussions for fraud. In fact, with the advent of blockchain technology and smart contract capabilities, there may not even need to be a need of a third party at all. Hence why also, as part of the Azadist strategy, all restrictions related to cryptocurrency and blockchain related projects should be lifted in India so to attract entrepreneurs of this technology into the nation and provide these solutions
.
To further curb the power of large corporations and make it harder for monopolisation is to lift barriers of entry into industry. Monopolies are the opposite to competition by their nature
. Therefore, we need more competition, not less, which would put pressure on these large corporations. By removing their ability to legally lobby, this will already do much to cripple their power, but other policies may include reducing tariffs. As a result Indian goods/services would become more financially attractive and this will further allow for greater access to global markets, thereby adding players to compete with the large domestic firms. At the same time farmers would experience an increase in demand for their produce as they would have easier access to a greater customer base. You would expect many organisations arising to export, not just crops but many other goods and services. International trade become easier once tariffs are removed entirely, increasing demand for Indian crops globally. Indian agriculture becomes more competitive, as well as making it cheaper for farmers to sell to clients abroad. Knowing that farmers have viable alternatives through foreign buyers, it would also help incentivise domestic firms to offer fairer deals.
We need to abandon this “Made in India” propaganda spouted by the state as its only real purpose being to protect large Indian firms from international competition and investment, which could outcompete them on price, quality and working conditions. Protectionist policies only protect the large corporations at the expense of the poor and working class. They have reduced access to goods/services and the opportunity to work in conditions that are more favourable with better reimbursement. When new entrants enter the market, it forces existing firms to increase affordability and quality, as well as working conditions for its employees in order to stay competitive. If the old organisations can’t balance this as well as others, consumers and employees would both go elsewhere. One of the primary reasons why they usually cannot currently is because there are so few other choices competing for their labour
. Through these policies of increasing competition, choices and alternatives arise. This is what the people need the most - more and better choices.
And perhaps the most important of these new choices would be opportunity. By having a more cost-effective economy, instead of Punjabis emigrating abroad for work, the companies and opportunities would come to them. Over time this would also provide some much needed development in Punjab as foreign investment increases. But maybe more critically, this would help diversify the Punjabi work demographics altogether. Instead of such a large proportion of our community being farmers and working in the same industry, we would be able to move into many new industries.
We can’t have it both ways. If everyone's a farmer, then there is an oversaturation of labour supply in this sector. This means that the income available for the agricultural industry is spread over a lot more people, and each has far less bargaining power. You can’t preserve farmer traditions for nostalgia’s sake whilst also wanting to become wealthy, high income earners. There has to come a point where we have to let more efficient and effective processes take over. People must gain new, more up to date skills. We must progress from old ways of doing things so that we can innovate with new methods that can drive down costs and prices, as well as increase purchasing power for both consumers and producers. The current situation is not sustainable. How many times can each farmer split the land they own amongst their children? This is an inherent bottleneck with the way this sector is operating, and farmers will be increasingly owning smaller plots of land.
Even then, if the desire is still to farm and preserve traditions then consider this: what is so traditional about pumping your soil with cancerous chemicals and growing unsustainable crops that are destined for under-consumption, whilst drowning ourselves in debt? If people still want to farm and preserve this activity then they could do so organically on a smaller scale in the comfort of the leisure time afforded to them through careers in less physically demanding roles. This is all being actively hampered by our own attitudes and government intervention perpetuating a poverty ridden agricultural sector stuck in the past and restricted from innovating through the perverse incentive structures they have established. There is risk to change, but there is also risk to staying in the same broken system. That risk is being realised today with the high rates of cancer, suicide, debt, low income and escapism to the west
.
We need to explore new industries and new career paths. Diversify the community economically. We have all our eggs in one basket of farming, and so whenever anything happens it is a big shock to the whole community. Especially in the Indian system, as it makes the community extremely reliant on the state for their income. Security of food, shelter, for their very survival has been handed over to the state to an obscene level. This is not very strategic at all.
Alongside this, to further increase competition, choices and opportunity, Azadism would reform the tax system by simplifying and limiting it. The Azadist Manifesto delves into more detail about this subject
, however for now the strategy would be to remove all corporation tax (alongside other types), leaving just one type of tax (income, consumption or land revenue are some options). This will further reduce the barriers of entry into business as the cost to set one up and maintain it are drastically reduced, making it easier for anyone to start and run one. This would also help farmers diversify into other industries much easier, as not only would alternative opportunities arise, the cost to be self-employed with their own business is reduced.
This helps ensure that competition is healthy and perpetual, constantly motivating each business to provide a good or service at price and quality people are willing to pay for. At the same time also balancing the working conditions and benefits for any employees, lest they choose to go elsewhere seeking a better deal.
You may be thinking, that if you so drastically remove tax streams to the government it’s collected revenues would drop. Good. This will force the government to cut back on unnecessary spending and divert efforts on providing the necessary conditions for a free market to function. Secondly, many government schemes and programmes would be removed in place of the NIT system, thereby avoiding further inefficient and costly state programs.
Additionally, an Azadist conception of government is a limited one anyway, restricted to only a few functions. The state needs to only be a referee in the market, not a participant. It should refocus its efforts on law, justice and national defence. Plenty to keep them busy with. With more energy devoted to these, the corruption can come under refreshed and increased scrutiny. And this part is essential. Much of this relies on a justice system that’s functional and absent of widespread corruption. Disputes need to settled in courts of law that can be trusted and relied upon, and criminals who break the law must be punished. The state needs to also make itself more transparent for private regulators to come and assess quality and assurance of judicial practices, lawyers, judges etc. Since these will be independent, private-sector regulators, with an incentive to find flaws
, more corruption is likely to be called out and the people can easier and more specifically demand alterations and punishments for the corrupt.
It is crucial for any policies to work that we first reform the justice system so that trust can develop in them and they can be relied upon to adjudicate legal matters fairly
. This is what we should have been protesting for. Another highlight of our community’s inability to save ourselves is our lack of negotiation skills. Whilst it may have seemed a success that the laws were repealed (as they should have been), a more strategic outcome would have been a deal.

Essentially, given the above economics of these bills, we should have instead said to the government that if you implement the kinds of reforms mentioned in this publication first, only then will we accept these laws. Now although much of the opportunity to present this has now gone, it is still not out of the question. The ability to mobilise and shut off the capital city is still fresh in their minds, and the ruling administration would not want to go through that again. We should leverage this and use it as a bargaining tool to re-initiate negotiations. The system we have gone back to is just a slower death. Let’s make the necessary changes now before it is too late.

Endnotes


Available to read for free at:

More information about how this works, please see Section IV of the Azadist Manifesto:
Raw: https://www.azadism.co.uk/taxes-welfare-and-safety-nets
(Under the header: “Universal Basic Income (UBI)” and “Negative Income Tax (NIT)”)
Essentially you can set up mini-jungles of a wide variety of plants and produce.
Watch this short documentary by Vice News looking at India’s Farm System. 8:50 onwards briefly shows this poly-culture system being adopted by some Punjabi organic farmers as promoted by the Non-profit organisation “Kheti Virasat Mission”.
Raw: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aSodjZhdc_c&ab_channel=VICENews

Raw: https://www.fao.org/3/CA2906EN/ca2906en.pdf
For a more detail explanation on how monopolies form and how to tackle them, please read Section III of the Azadist Manifesto:
Raw: https://www.azadism.co.uk/private-vs-public
(Under the header: “Private Monopolies”)
Hence why many in Punjab in particular go abroad.
And can we blame them? People vote with their feet. Everyone wants a good life and many make massive sacrifices to achieve this.

Raw: https://www.azadism.co.uk/taxes-welfare-and-safety-nets
(Under the header: “Taxes”)
See the Manifesto as to why they have better incentives than government regulators, and for the risks involved and how to overcome. Essentially, their reputations are their source of income. Jeopardise that and your career as a private regulator in a competitive market will likely come to an end very quickly, alongside any potential legal consequences too.
Raw: https://www.azadism.co.uk/private-vs-public
(Under the header: “Regulations”)

Azadism suggests vastly simplifying it to only cover the NAP, not punish victimless crimes. Optional “law layers” could be practised on top as determined by contracts, however this is explained a bit more in the Manifesto:
Raw: https://www.azadism.co.uk/the-role-of-government
(Under the header: “Contracts and Law”)


58Asset 8@4x.png
Bunga Azaadi — Institute for Azadist Studies

Follow us on
For email updates,
Want to support?
Questions, suggestions or disagreements? Get in touch!
email: contact@azadism.co.uk

Share
 
Want to print your doc?
This is not the way.
Try clicking the ⋯ next to your doc name or using a keyboard shortcut (
CtrlP
) instead.