Austro-Libertarian Natural Order Philosophy From Indyeah

Individualistic Austro-Libertarian Natural Order Philosophy From Indyeah

Saturday, April 18, 2009

A Matter Of Principle

Once in a while, a reader is prompted to click the donate button on the right and contribute to Antidote. I always make it a point to acknowledge all contributions. This time around, the reader wrote back asking me to set up a political party. He was aware of the fact that the Representation of the People Act made it mandatory for all political parties to swear by socialism, but he advocated a clever way out of this restriction.

He said:

“Do you not think that the definition of ‘socialism’ is completely subjective? I could just say that I define socialism as that system which is for the benefit of all and I believe that libertarianism is for the benefit of all. Why not just register a party and get on with campaigning?”

Actually, every political party espouses ideas that it believes will benefit the people and lead to the “common good.” Mulayam Singh Yadav and his star campaigner Sanjay Dudd believe they will create a happy and wealthy society by outlawing tractors and computers. No one starts off saying that they seek to destroy society. Yet, some achieve precisely that, because their philosophy is in serious error. This is the case with “socialism.” The USSR, China, pre-liberalization India, Cuba – these are all instances when socialists destroyed their nations. This was the “unintended consequence” of their erroneous ideas.

Let us turn to the precise words used in the RP Act: The relevant section, 29A (5), says that any party that seeks registration:

“… shall bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India as by law established, and to the principles of socialism, secularism and democracy…”

Note the word “principles.”

The Principle of Socialism is collective property, whereas the Principle of Liberalism is private property.

Recall Chacha Manmohan S Gandhi’s recent interview with the Financial Times of London, where he said quite clearly that the State-owned industrial sector – collective property – would “continue to play a very important role in India.”

Chacha is a socialist. He upholds the socialist principle.

How can any classical liberal or libertarian swear by this principle?

And why should we commit perjury just to enter electoral politics?

Note that nothing stops us from “campaigning” – not for elections, but for spreading our ideas amongst the people. This blog is just one among many doing just that. There are think-tanks. There are many other groups as well.

I believe that if we continue this good work, each in his own way, we will one day convince a critical mass of the validity of the Principle of Private Property.

That is our present task.

It is all a matter of Principle.

(Incidentally, how is the BJP allowed to enter electoral politics when it clearly violates the Principle of Secularism?)

3 comments:

  1. I have two questions:

    What are the principles of socialism? Are they defined any where?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hushang: Socialism places society - the collective, represented by the centralized State - above the individual, his liberties and his properties.

    Its fundamental principle is collective property - the "social ownership of the means of production."

    Further, socialists believe they can replace the market with centralized economic planning.

    As you can see, all three principles are being applied in India.

    Since we do not accept the validity of any of these principles of socialism, we cannot and should not enter electoral politics through an oath of fealty to these principles.

    Rather, we should offer the people an understanding of liberal / libertarian principles, which are in complete and total opposition to those of the socialists.

    Hope this helps.

    ReplyDelete
  3. people usually mean realpolitik when they say politics. politics is about morals as opposed to the skulduggery it has come to embody.

    ReplyDelete