Nonsense From Amartya Sen

Professor Amartya Sen is at it again – confusing the idea of justice in order to suit socialists. Sen’s latest book is titled The Idea of Justice, and its release has prompted the ToI to publish a full-length interview with the man in the Sunday paper. The interview reveals where Sen stands, and how much at variance he is from traditional conceptions of Justice.

Sen begins by quoting Antonio Gramsci, whom he calls “a great Italian political leader.” Actually, Gramsci was a great Communist – read about him here – and we all know what communists know about Justice, which is, to them: No Property. Horrors.

After this inauspicious beginning, Sen rambles on and on in support of “human rights,” in support of “social justice,” and in support of the ideas of John Rawls. All this is nonsense-on-stilts.

Towards the end, Sen gives us an idea of the “injustices” he seeks to correct with his idea of justice – and these are:

“… slavery, or subjugation of women, or widespread hunger and deprivation, or the lack of schooling of children, or absence of available and affordable health care.”

Actually, it is State interference in The Market that causes poverty, which results in hunger and deprivation, as well as the inability to afford either schooling or healthcare. Sen’s idea of justice therefore is all about further State intervention. There must be more State spending on education (which is nothing but State propaganda) as well as healthcare etc. Sen is a socialist. Or, more precisely, especially in the Indian context, Sen is a “statist.” An étatist.

What is Justice? Why is it so elusive?

It was Ayn Rand who asserted that “the principle of trade is the principle of justice.” There is Justice in trade because no one has treated the other unjustly.

So what is Injustice?

Violation of Property, violation of Contract, and causing physical or financial injury to anyone, either purposely or by accident – these constitute Injustice.

For correcting these injustices, which are always against individuals and not against The State, what I think best would be a system of fines – to be paid to the unjustly treated individual by the unjust party. This is how “justice is done.”

Indeed, this was the system of Justice among the Anglo-Saxon tribes of old – and Bruce Benson’s The Enterprise of Law: Justice Without The State is an excellent read on the subject. This was Justice without any police. And it worked. I am sure it can work again.

Thankfully, the good journalists of the ToI have also linked another article to the Amartya Sen interview – a story about the real injustices that occur in India. It begins thus:

More than 30 million cases are pending in the courts; the National Human Rights Commission receives more than 75,000 complaints a year [against the police!]; the National Crimes Bureau (NCB) registered 27,000 cases of violence against Dalits in 2006; the NCB also reported 32,481 murders, 19,348 rapes, 7,618 dowry deaths and 36,617 molestation cases.

In the meanwhile, the police are no good, the courts don’t work.

There is No Justice At All.

And Sen is blabbering on and on about “education and healthcare” as constituting real justice. He probably also thinks that the NREGA is “justice.”

I recommend to all Friedrich Hayek’s Law, Legislation and Liberty, especially Volume 2 titled “The Mirage of Social Justice.” Buy it here.

Sen’s conception of justice is just this mirage.

Nonsense-on-stilts.