There is a story from Kandamahal, Orissa, where Christians are being massacred by Hindoooo evil morons, that says 42,000 conversions took place and only in 2 cases was the law followed. The law, it seems, says that the District Magistrate must receive an application for conversion and grant his approval for the same.
This raises an interesting issue in Law: That Property is not a Right; rather, Property is a Liberty.
Since all individuals are proprietors of their own souls, they must be at Liberty to do what they want with it. The District Magistrate cannot interfere – just as he cannot interfere if a tribal wants to sell his crop.
Rights only accrue is someone has a matching obligation. Thus, if I sign a lease agreement with you for renting out my basement, you have the right to occupy it because I am legally obliged to allow you to occupy the said basement.
Rights without Obligations are meaningless – like "human rights" or the "right to education." These are all part of the horrendous multiplication of useless rights that socialist democracy has created.
We need to bring back the original classical understanding that Property is a Liberty.
A good read on the subject is Anthony de Jasay's Before Resorting to Politics.
Since all individuals are proprietors of their own souls, they must be at Liberty to do what they want with it.
ReplyDeleteWhat if the buyer/reaper of the soul is offering a place in heaven - enticing the seller to give him his soul?
Extending the logic, will it be a crime, if one sells a poisonous-brain-damaging compound, offering salvation with the caveat that the buyer after consuming will appear mentally unstable to others - but will actually be in heaven? Can the seller be permitted to sell the goods?
Again for the above case, what if the buyer is a villager making ends meet and seller is a pharmaceutical testing company?
I am not trying to make a case for any religion or socialism - just interested in knowing how can this issue be tackled in your opinion?
The essential FACT worth noting is that Indian politicians BUY VOTES.
ReplyDeleteWith free liquor, with free sarees, with free rice, and with all kinds of freebies.
Yet, these same corrupt vote buyers find it objectionable if some poor villager or tribal destitute responds to "economic incentives" and converts to another religion - basically, to Christianity, a religion that has many devoted missionaries working with poor people all over India. I admire these missionaries. I wish them success. May their flock grow.
If the Hindoooos are upset, they must compete for these very same souls. But their "religion" is but ritualism, casteism and other such nonsense, without any moral worth.
At least I will never allow my soul to be occupied by these corrupt, senseless and immoral methods.
Sauvik,
ReplyDeleteMaybe I didnt put the question through clearly, my question was not about the politicians or the religious groups (an their conflicts), although I find your moral estimation of the religious groups amusing (coming from a person like you!).
I was trying to understand your concept about liberty. As I understand it, you define liberty at individual level, where one is at liberty to do what one wants, as long as one doesnt harm the same liberty of another human being.
My question was then, will it be a crime, if one sells a poisonous-brain-damaging compound, offering salvation/nirvana or something intangible, with the caveat that the buyer after consuming will appear mentally unstable to others - but will actually be in heaven? Can the seller be permitted to sell the goods?
Again for the above case, what if the buyer is a villager making ends meet and seller is another guy representing a pharmaceutical testing company?
I was asking, just to understand your position with regards to the example.
First: There are NO CRIMES.
ReplyDeleteAll real damages to individuals are TORTS.
In the case of the substance you mention, it is up to the individual who buys them to claim a TORT - and the same applies to the villager injured by the pharma company.
The KEY point is that all voluntary sales and purchases are permitted - except in cases where there are other contractual obligations, or where there are third-party torts.
Hope this helps.
It indeed does help. Learning a new stuff is always good (bless the internet :-)
ReplyDeleteBut in case of the villager, I think he cannot claim Tort as he is incapacitated, and hence the pharmaguy walks free. Do correct me if I am wrong.
Either way, thanks for answering the queries.
CRIMES are all against the State. The State takes action against the criminal - through a monopoly over the criminal justice system. The State punishes the guilty. There are many "crimes" in which there is no tort on anyone, as with my smoking ganja, gambling etc.
ReplyDeleteTorts are all against individuals. These are civil cases. The injured party is free to collect his own evidence and launch prosecution on his own.
There is thus no reason to believe that the villager in your example should not be able to claim relief in torts.
Indeed, if these injuries by pharma companies were treated as crimes, the poor villager would get nothing - as with the Bhopal gas tragedy.
To add a small point: Under criminal law, the State may catch a few perpetrators and jail them, but the VICTIM gets nothing.
ReplyDeleteFurther, with rampant corruption, almost all criminals get away by paying off the personnel of the criminal justice system. There is thus no justice at all.
On the other hand, if any damage to a person's body or property is treated as a tort and the tortfeasor is forced to pay suitable compensation, there is a genuine economic incentive to behave in a just manner towards everyone. There is Justice. The Rule of Law prevails.
Well, that indeed does clear my query. Thanks a lot for the information. :-)
ReplyDeleteexcellent response Sauvik, to a smart question! It's very educative
ReplyDelete