The news that the government of Maharashtra has dictated 80 per cent reservations in jobs for locals must be viewed as an Injustice, given that Justice demands a Rule of Law in which there is neither Preference nor Restraint.
This is preferential treatment for locals – and it brings to mind what Adam Smith wrote on the subject. This quote is from The Wealth of Nations:
“All systems either of preference or of restraint, therefore, being thus completely taken away, the obvious and simple system of natural liberty establishes itself of its own accord. Every man, as long as he does not violate the laws of justice, is left perfectly free to pursue his own interest his own way, and to bring both his industry and capital into competition with those of any other man, or order of men. The sovereign is completely discharged from a duty, in the attempting to perform which he must always be exposed to innumerable delusions, and for the proper performance of which no human wisdom or knowledge could ever be sufficient; the duty of superintending the industry of private people, and of directing it towards the employments most suitable to the interest of the society. According to the system of natural liberty, the sovereign has only three duties to attend to; three duties of great importance, indeed, but plain and intelligible to common understandings: first, the duty of protecting the society from violence and invasion of other independent societies; secondly, the duty of protecting, as far as possible, every member of the society from the injustice or oppression of every other member of it, or the duty of establishing an exact administration of justice; and, thirdly, the duty of erecting and maintaining certain public works and certain public institutions which it can never be for the interest of any individual, or small number of individuals, to erect and maintain; because the profit could never repay the expense to any individual or small number of individuals, though it may frequently do much more than repay it to a great society.”
Note the emphasized words carefully. It will show to you that our The State has just become a puppet in the hands of every string puller available. It is a “weathervane State” that turns with every change in the political winds. It is also a “predatory State” that seeks always to rob one group in order to favour another. All this is against the ideals of the Rule of Law. Indeed, this is the polar opposite: The rule of arbitrary decrees of capricious politicians.
Oh for the System of Natural Liberty!
I agree. You've got it all down on a page. We had discussed this at Kaushik's place and we all still do. And convinced, Ive also been explaining the same things to people who might not even take interest in the subject....
ReplyDeleteQUESTION IS When or How do people of this fettered nation understand?
The present situation seems to be one of those "Woh sab sirf ideologies hai" in people's minds.
Will people take time to absorb the idea of Natural Liberty?
The problem is that marathi politicians are looking at "north indians" as if they belong to a different society and by implementing this reservation-for-locals, they are just safeguarding the interests of marathi society which in turn is justified by adam smith's theory (...first, the duty of protecting the society from violence and invasion of other independent societies...).
ReplyDeletedo marathis and north indians belong to different societies?
the duty is of protecting from violence or invasion (not only from other societies but also the victim against the oppressor from the same society)....
ReplyDeleteand that duty is not being fulfilled - neither by the judiciary nor by 'our The State'
we can't look at this in terms of societies at all... the people who originate from birth or race in north india, ARE BEING TREATED AS A SEPARATE SOCIETY from the ones who originated from birth or race in Maharashtra.
This is the basic reason why there is so much injustice.
The key point is the "Vote Motive" that is at the root of a "politics of groups."
ReplyDeleteThe groups can be Marathis, Biharis, Muslims, Hindus, "workers" or even "society."
But The Law exists to protect INDIVIDUALS, their lives, and their properties.
So the only solution is a politics of individualism, which is what Liberalism is about.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAgain...i don't agree with "thirdly, the duty of erecting and maintaining certain public works and certain public institutions which it can never be for the interest of any individual, or small number of individuals, to erect and maintain"...i believe that every institution other maintaining liberty should be handled and maintained by individuals...in the same way roads, railways, etc. should be developed and maintained by individuals and should be for profit...i don't believe that government intervention in such public works is necessary...further, maintaining liberty should the job of associations of members....non-members are not eligible for protection...that's where small governments come into picture...in that way individuals are free to choose between protecting themselves or using the services of associations....
ReplyDeleteWhile there can be "gated localities" and even "company towns" wherein everything from roads to security are privately provided, there will still be mega-cities wherein we will have to build honest municipal corporations to handle these tasks.
ReplyDeleteThe long experience of the Old City of London ("the City") and its corporation headed by a "Lord Mayor" are useful as historical guides to present action. I recommend Valerie Hope's excellent history of the Lord Mayor of London, an office that is older than the Magna Carta.
It is also an interesting fact that the title "Lord" was not given by the King: it was given by the citizenry. He was not a political client - like our "panchayati raj" chappies always are.
Even to this day, the King of England cannot march his army through the Old City of London without the permission of the Lord Mayor. The old city also has its own police force - the "bobby" of metropolitan London is not allowed in.
a good article on what "gated locality" means would be great...i would like read on that...
ReplyDeletebut i do not see any benefit in having a "Municipal Corporation" in India...that's because i am pretty use to the fact that the "BMC" keeps failing in every task it undertakes...the main and the most logical reason is that there is no "Profit Motive"...and as you have said before there is only "Vote Motive"...it is utopian to think that a politician won't have "Vote Motive"....
My article on "Company Towns" can be accessed at http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/msid-1910162,flstry-1.cms
ReplyDeleteIf we emphasize municipal organization and downplay panchayati raj, we might be able to improve the functioning of our civic corporations.
Also, when cities and towns are competing for citizens, there is pressure on mayors and councillors to deliver.
The most important point, of course, is that there must be hundreds of cities and thousands of towns - all competing for business.
oops! the article is at the url below:
ReplyDeletehttp://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/
articleshow/
msid-1910162,flstry-1.cms
There are slums because there are no property titles. And because of rent control. They would not exist under the Rule of Law.
ReplyDeleteYes, inter-city road and rail networks can and must come from the private sector. But in "public cities" (as opposed to "company towns") local roads, garbage, sewage, and even some policing must be provided by local government.
The only thing that can keep such a local government on its toes is not democracy and votes: rather, it is competition between local governments for citizens.
Check out Charles Tiebout's important paper on this, also in Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Tiebout_model
it is not clear on what basis will the competition hold results.
ReplyDeleteVoting?
my point is that if a body or office is given power/responsibility to construct public institutions,
they will have to tax us, and since the whole caclulation is going to be 'complicated', there will be room for corruption.
Rather why not sell these public institutions to private parties and let them run it. The better they do it, the better the results.
and more the readiness to pay from the public's side.
Let there be competition on that basis.
... and the money procured from selling the institutions can be invested in protecting the rights of the individual, which will be one of the few prerogatives of the govt.
ReplyDeleteMy ideals are "limited government" and "local government."
ReplyDeleteAnd that too, competing local governments.
If a 1000 "company towns" suddenly sprout all over India - especially the coasts - think of the shock it will give the BMC!
I am sure they will reform themselves very fast.