Mumbai's moral police have tied themselves up in knots over the American cheerleaders who are to perform in a cricket stadium for an IPL match.
After initial reports saying that the performance will not be allowed, it seems they have now relented.
According to the news report, the minister has clarified that the legislation passed by the Maharashtra assembly some years ago was opposed to 'dance bars' – but not to dance.
In his own words: "The existing law on dance bars stipulates that dancing and serving alcohol cannot be done at the same place."
In other words, drinking and dancing are OK only if done in separate places!
Drink here, dance there.
In reality, this means that the only dancers who can succeed in Mumbai are those that work for film and television – the best and the wealthiest dancers.
Lesser mortals who want to make a living through dance are barred from performing.
This "existing law" is against the poor, the vulnerable, and the weak.
It claims the high moral ground, but is actually perverse. It is blatantly unjust – and there cannot be any morality in injustice.
What is the permanent way out?
We must learn to distinguish between law and legislation.
To be free, we need to rely on "natural law" that has come from the past – like private property, contracts and torts. These natural laws should be above government: "The King is under God and the Law" is a very old saying – indicating that in medieval times, kings could not make law. The Queen of England still cannot make law.
Law should not be made afresh by legislators – 500 'representatives of the people' crammed into a room who vote as directed by "party whips". Confusing law with legislation means that society is never sure of its laws – they are always changing.
Hence, the minister's reference to "existing law" means that this law was not there in the past, and also that this law may not be there in the future. Everything is uncertain. This goes against the very purpose of law, which is certainty. We must be certain always as to what is right and what is wrong.
Note that in the report the minister says his deputy "has not read the law properly". That is, senior legislators have not read the legislations they have themselves inflicted upon society!
The key to Liberty Under Law lies in distinguishing between law and legislation. Let us live under Law – and let us do away with legislative interference in private property.
Dance bars are private property. The legislator cannot decide what happens there. These decision must be made by the owners, his employees and – in the ultimate analysis – the customers.
A great book to read on this is Bruno Leoni's Freedom And The Law.
It influenced Friedrich Hayek, who wrote a 3-volume Law, Legislation & Liberty. The first two volumes are a must read.
Anyone who reads these will soon come to the conclusion that the worst aspect of modern democracy – the reason why it is so despotic – is because it is deemed legitimate for elected representatives to interfere in society with their legislations, which are treated as par with Law.
After initial reports saying that the performance will not be allowed, it seems they have now relented.
According to the news report, the minister has clarified that the legislation passed by the Maharashtra assembly some years ago was opposed to 'dance bars' – but not to dance.
In his own words: "The existing law on dance bars stipulates that dancing and serving alcohol cannot be done at the same place."
In other words, drinking and dancing are OK only if done in separate places!
Drink here, dance there.
In reality, this means that the only dancers who can succeed in Mumbai are those that work for film and television – the best and the wealthiest dancers.
Lesser mortals who want to make a living through dance are barred from performing.
This "existing law" is against the poor, the vulnerable, and the weak.
It claims the high moral ground, but is actually perverse. It is blatantly unjust – and there cannot be any morality in injustice.
What is the permanent way out?
We must learn to distinguish between law and legislation.
To be free, we need to rely on "natural law" that has come from the past – like private property, contracts and torts. These natural laws should be above government: "The King is under God and the Law" is a very old saying – indicating that in medieval times, kings could not make law. The Queen of England still cannot make law.
Law should not be made afresh by legislators – 500 'representatives of the people' crammed into a room who vote as directed by "party whips". Confusing law with legislation means that society is never sure of its laws – they are always changing.
Hence, the minister's reference to "existing law" means that this law was not there in the past, and also that this law may not be there in the future. Everything is uncertain. This goes against the very purpose of law, which is certainty. We must be certain always as to what is right and what is wrong.
Note that in the report the minister says his deputy "has not read the law properly". That is, senior legislators have not read the legislations they have themselves inflicted upon society!
The key to Liberty Under Law lies in distinguishing between law and legislation. Let us live under Law – and let us do away with legislative interference in private property.
Dance bars are private property. The legislator cannot decide what happens there. These decision must be made by the owners, his employees and – in the ultimate analysis – the customers.
A great book to read on this is Bruno Leoni's Freedom And The Law.
It influenced Friedrich Hayek, who wrote a 3-volume Law, Legislation & Liberty. The first two volumes are a must read.
Anyone who reads these will soon come to the conclusion that the worst aspect of modern democracy – the reason why it is so despotic – is because it is deemed legitimate for elected representatives to interfere in society with their legislations, which are treated as par with Law.
No comments:
Post a Comment