Austro-Libertarian Natural Order Philosophy From Indyeah

Individualistic Austro-Libertarian Natural Order Philosophy From Indyeah

Sunday, July 27, 2008

Kamal Nut On Livelihood

Kamal Nath is at it again: blocking free international trade on behalf of a nation of over 1 billion people.

This time, however, Nath has hit on the new tack: claiming to be the spokesman of 600 million Indians who are subsistence farmers.

The issue, he claims, is the very “livelihood” of all these poor people. He will “not compromise on matter of livelihood.”

Ho hum.

Actually, at the level of Urban Ground Zero, the State is the enemy of the livelihoods of the poor.

We see it all the time, everywhere: but the Indian political class never utters a word about “economic freedom.”

It is Urban India that needs economic freedom first, because that will turn the economic engine on, fanning the winds of international commerce over all the villages.

And anyway, we also see that villagers are “voting with their feet” in millions, migrating to Urban India.

They are migrating “From Subsistence To Exchange” – just what Peter Bauer asked them to do.

Subsistence is producing for self-consumption – and this has nothing to do with Catallactics, or trade, where we produce for strangers and buy from strangers as well, in an Urban Civilization.

The minister is defending trade barriers that are designed with the express purpose of imposing Subsistence (which is what the villagers are fleeing from) on Urban India, whose glorious future lies in Catallactics, or Exchange – with everyone, including all foreigners.

My fellow citizens must therefore realize that the customs department should be abolished. It blocks more economic gains than the revenue it generates. Its purpose today is not revenue, but political patronage. Kamal Nath wants to protect auto-component manufacturers – the “infants” he wants to coochie-coo – but that will mean more expensive cars and repairs for everyone. There is no trade with 400 per cent duties on wine and 200 per cent on used cars. No trade means no revenue. It is just a misuse of coercion for private ends – the same old story.

If the customs department is shut down today, and the entire landmass becomes the world’s biggest duty-free trading arena, and every shop, even the paan-bidi shop, stocks duty-free foreign products, will Indians be richer or poorer one year hence? Think about it.

Kamal Nut makes for strange “politics”: his constituency lies in a poverty-stricken autarkic landlocked hole in Madhya Pradesh. And he is the jet-setting face of the government of India’s attitude to foreign trade, flying all over the developed world. Where he claims to “represent the poor.” And that too, I would add, as a monopolist.

This is another case of “knowledge failure” under Manmohan’s regime.

The issue is extremely serious: Livelihood.

4 comments:

  1. I think you Libertarians are better off without defending such things like livelihood, because ultimately such things are indefensible under a libertarian society.

    for example, Free trade causes greater prosperity, no doubt, but it also causes the loss of livelihood of people who depended on the barriers. While it's true that the government attacks the livelihood of people, buy any holistic defense of livelihood cannot be complete under free-market theory. I suggest you drop this libertarian populism stuff, because it makes libertarian theory unsound riddled with internal contradictions like all other worldviews.

    ReplyDelete
  2. If Nitish Sud is right, and all "world-views" are wrong, then there is no such thing as an "exact science" of human affairs. Humanity is condemned to muddle through contradictions forever. Everything needs a political solution and government interference. There is no philosophy of freedom that is universally valid. Yet, this deeply cynical and pessimistic view of the future is unwarranted.

    I suggest an immediate reading of Ludwig von Mises' "The Ultimate Foundation of Economic Science", which he places as a "universally valid science."

    We are not talking bullshit, dude. You are.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I am familar with Parth's work, I have been at his workshops. I'm sympathetic towards those ideas, but my point more than anything is that livelihood in any holistic sense cannot be defended under your libertarian theory.

    Consider this hypothetical, I am an ineffective car producer in the 80s (let's call me Tata), if the market is opened up, my competitive advantage (which entirely depends on high tariffs) fades, and I will be out of business. This may well be better off for the rest of India (or not, we wouldn't have had Tata if not for protectionism) but it affects my livelihood. My simple question to you is Would you as a libertarian then advocate tariffs in defense of my livelihood and people who are defendant on my company?

    If you don't then you cannot, you do not support livelihood in any holistic sense. merely perhaps the freedom to a livelihood. Which is fine, but given a choice most people would choose actual profitable livelihood over the freedom to do something which is has lower earnings.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Nitish wants our medicine to be "holistic".
    It is!
    We can either protect all our interests as producers or as consumers. If we protect all producers, there will be nothing available in the markets. If we protect all our interests as consumers, the markets will be overflowing with all the goodies the heart can desire. And since the purpose of production - and of Life - is consumption, this is excellent medicine for all.
    It is "holistic medicine". It makes everyone compete. Why should Tata, Bajaj, Birla, Mahindra et. al. not COMPETE when all our youngsters compete for the IIT-JEE, the IIM_CAT, the UPCS-IAS and everything else?
    Got it, dude? Finally!

    ReplyDelete