HOW CORRUPT PARTIES USE BLACK MONEY IN ELECTIONS. FROM ELECTION COMMISSION'S HANDBOOK FOR OBSERVERS:
Use of money power starts right from the distribution of tickets by the political parties. Subsequently, it takes various forms, which are enlisted herein below. However, it must be kept in mind that the enlisted ways of spending money is only indicative. There can be many other ways of spending money.
a) Booth-wise agents are appointed to purchase floating votes;
b) Large donations to clubs and organizations to influence its members;
c) Largesse to petty party workers to dole out the same to electors;
d) Rented crowds for party meetings;
e) Rallies and campaigns with purchasable crowd;
f) Presence of candidates at social occasions like mass weddings, feasts, puja's, jagrans, inaugurals, etc. where gifts are given on behalf of candidates;
g) Acceptance of felicitations by the contesting candidates at any educational or charitable organizations;
h) Distribution of free liquor/liquor passes to the electors;
i) Use of dummy candidates at election to utilize his quota of electioneering vehicles, etc.
j) Surrogate advertisements in print and electronic media whereby candidature is canvassed by unconnected persons/organizations so as to
avoid the expenditure on the same being accounted for in the expenditure of the contesting candidates;
k) Bringing cinema celebrities and sportspersons to campaign;
l) Providing voters with caps, vests, umbrellas, bi-cycles, etc.
I've read Friedman sporadically but nothing beats listening to him directly. I'm delighted at the good number of video snippets from Friedman's talks that are sprouting on the internet. This post (a placeholder) is an attempt compile a few of them.
Negative Income Tax
Equal pay laws
Role of government in a free society
Regulatory tradeoffs, free choice, cost benefit and risk
More on the dangers of unthinking regulation that doesn't take into account all consequences
Freedom of speech
Classical liberalism and role of the government
Why economic equality leads to coercion and neither freedom nor equality
How prohibitions on "immoral behaviour" make these things more profitable
Market failure, sure, but don't jump to government solutions, for there is government failure
I'm not an expert on feminism. I've only tangentially read the work of its leaders. To me the main struggle is for women's equal status (unlike socialism, which is a demand for economic equality). Btw, a demand for equal pay for equal work is quite different from equal pay for unequal work (socialism).
I've briefly reviewed the history of women's emancipation here: http://sanjeev.sabhlokcity.com/book2/discovery.pdf. Classical liberals like JS Mill played a significant role in this emancipation. Every single classical liberal has and will fight for the rights and liberty of ALL humans, including men, women, trans-sexuals, children, everyone.
Without knowing much about it, I'd hazard a view that feminism is a byproduct of classical liberalism. It never exist in pre-capitalist societies nor (I think) in any communist (i.e. foundationally socialist) society, such as USSR/ Mao's China. As women started receiving high quality education in the West (based on the efforts of classical liberals) they started questioning the status-quo.
The author of the article you cite has framed the issue under 'left-wing – right-wing' categories. In my view, the issue is best framed under the 'free-unfree' dichotomy. The classical liberal is not a conservative ('right wing'), so I dislike being counted as part of the 'right-wing' .
I believe all humans must be treated equally under the law and should be free to bargain and achieve their goals in the market. The law can't discriminate in any way (including through 'affirmative action') in favour or against of any particular group (including women). Second part: Why does the market not pay 100 per cent of men's wages to women in all cases? That's a research project I don't have time for, but it requires solid controls, to isolate the truth.
This idea has no theoretical foundations (hence such claims are questionable). The idea that there are highly talented but underpaid women in the West is fundamentally untenable. If that was the case, anybody (including any woman entrepreneur – and there are plenty of them) could head-hunt them at higher rates, achieving massive profits for themselves.
Imagine if a woman's marginal product is $100 per hour but she is paid $83. Not only could she start off her own business to fully capture her product, but someone else (including a woman entrepreneur) could pay her $86 and keep the profit. That's a lot of value to arbitrage. $17 per hour sitting untapped. Of course, someone else would then re-grab this talented but (still) underpaid woman and pay her $90, say, … and so on till she was paid her marginal product.
That's what happens in a free market. It is hard – indeed ridiculous – to suggest that people aren't paid their marginal product in a free competitive market. It is therefore hard (if not impossible) to argue for the existence of systematic bias against women in free societies, particularly modern Western societies. There are a LOT of stupid and shoddy studies that exist in the field of social science and I'd be loathe to 'believe' them. Logically it is impossible to argue that there is a systematic bias against women in a free market.
Chanced upon this video by Milton Friedman who makes the same point I do – but far more clearly, and shows why equal pay laws HARM women.
I'm merely providing 2 minutes from it below, which says things as clearly as I'd want anyone to say. Ajit Pai is one of the most brilliant thinkers I've come across. In just 30 minutes of listening to him, I know he is a true leader.
NET NEUTRALITY THROUGH GOVERNMENT REGULATION IS A REALLY BAD IDEA.