Austro-Libertarian Natural Order Philosophy From Indyeah

Individualistic Austro-Libertarian Natural Order Philosophy From Indyeah

Saturday, October 4, 2008

On the False Friends of Liberalism

I use the word “libertarian” to describe this blog’s intellectual position because the word “liberal” is used by almost anyone and everyone – and these are almost entirely false friends.

Take the case of Jayaprakash Narayan (JP) of the Lok Satta Party (LSP). He was the centre of attention at the “liberal symposium” in Delhi last week – and the news today has it that the LSP, under his leadership, is spearheading a campaign to shut down 1,50,000 “illegal” liquor shops in Andhra Pradesh. This is not liberalism at all. And do note that these “illegal” liquor shops must be giving the “legal” liquor shops stiff competition. A truly “liberal” public policy position would be to make the issuance of liquor shop licenses free and easy. Then all liquor shops would be “legal” and they would be equal under Law. The Law would prevail. We are forced to conclude, therefore, that JP’s LSP is illiberal.

Why does liberalism have so many false friends? The answer lies in an “attitude” that infects politics in India: the idea that there is something wrong with “the people” and that The Politician must step in to correct this wrong. The people are smoking. Terrible. The people are drinking. Even worse. They visit dance bars. They smoke ganja and charas. They gamble. They patronize prostitutes. Horrible! The politician therefore masquerades as a social reformer and steps in with State action. It is here that illiberalism begins.

To the libertarian, society is imperfect and doomed to remain so. The role of The State and The Law is not to alter society towards perfection. On the contrary. The role of The State and The Law is to allow society to continue to do what it is doing – but under equal legal protection for all. This is Liberty Under Law. Thus, if you sell spurious liquor or nakli ganja you are guilty of a tort. The illiberal would pervert this idea of Law and force all these legitimate businesses underground.

Of course, there are some spineless and brainless commentators like Mihir S Sharma who welcome illiberal dictators because they force him to stop smoking. Here is this dud actually thanking ramadoss. It is well said that the worst tyranny is that which comes under the guise of “this is for your own good.” If Mihir wanted to stop smoking, he should have done so himself, demonstrating his own will power. Now, he is actually condoning dictatorship on other smokers.

The true “liberal” in India must veer towards the libertarian label if he wants to preserve his freedom. There are too many false friends under the liberal banner.

7 comments:

  1. Awesome Antidote sauvik,
    I knew the moment I saw JP, Suited guy for an indian politician, who on the ramp says, "no absolute property rights"..gurucharan goes to the extent of having a percentage to it...70% to 30%..todays TOI....
    What ever happened to old fashioned simplicity....

    why cant they understand simple words used as antidote.

    cheers

    ReplyDelete
  2. Though I agree with the point abt property rights in the smoking ban context, I feel you were a tad harsh against Mihir..I read his piece that you linked to and found a little touch of sarcasm. Maybe the guy isnt really "thanking" the doctor...
    Just my feeling...

    ReplyDelete
  3. As a non-smoker, I have the right to cigarette smoke-free air, so would that be justification enough for the government to ban smoking in public places? I agree that the government has no business banning smoking in hotels and bars.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Well...right about non-smokers having a right to smoke-free air. However, the insinuation here is that the health minister is telling us that smoking is not good for health...hence he is going to make it easy for us to quit. I do not think love for non-smokers has much to do with it. It is, at most, a side-effect of the ban. Next, the "good doctor" will pass a law saying that parents have no right to smoke in front of their kids even when they are in their own home. How logical does that seem ?

    ReplyDelete
  5. I like your stand regarding the govt being rigid about issuing liquor licences. If the beer and spirits industry does not have to go through complexities and innumerable state wise duties, they can ensure the supply of good quality liquor products and that would invariably bring down the no of deaths caused due to spurious liquor.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Please see the sarcasm in the post that you linked to!!
    I know you are pissed off at ramdoss, and rightfully so. Just don't lose your brain over it.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Well I agree with all that you have said....i would like to add a tid bit to it....as a libertarian i would like to see the government only uphelding my fundamental rights and nothing else....that's all that is required....that is what a small government should do....as to smoking in public places....the government should surely make certain public places for smokers so that a the people who do not want second hand smoking would be safe....and thus, uphelding every person's fundamental right to live and live the way they want to live....and that's it....nothing more nothing less....nobody has the right to tell me whether I should drink, smoke, or die as long as the anothers fundamental right is not hindered....

    ReplyDelete