She says:
Poor people gonna rise up
Get what’s theirs
[So far so good, for this means homesteading and property. But the next two lines jar.]
Poor people gonna rise up
Get their share.
“Get their share” is a meaningless proposition in a free market system. There is no Big Chief in The Market doling out “fair shares for all.” The very idea is atavistic.
As I was thinking about this error on the part of Tracy Chapman, it struck me that there are two other prominent examples of similar errors that I could point out to my readers. The first is John Lennon, in his greatest song, “Imagine.” There, Lennon imagines Hell when he sings:
Imagine no possessions,
I wonder if you can,
No need for greed, no hunger,
A brotherhood of man.
No possessions? No Property? Can anyone “imagine” such a world? Can you imagine all the poor raiding all the shops and all the mansions of the rich in the name of universal brotherhood? Society will break down in minutes if we announced that all properties are to be held in common.
I wonder who taught Lennon “civics” in Liverpool. It was long, long ago, in 1690, that John Locke, an Englishman, wrote that “where there is no Property there is no Justice.” Nor can there be any Liberty either. Liberty, Justice and Property are inter-related.
But the great John Lennon saw it not.
Next on my list is Bob Marley himself (or should I say Peter Tosh, for Tosh wrote the song) and his super-hit rebel song, “Get up, stand up.” The refrain goes, “Stand up for your RIGHTS.”
Now, if we all go about “standing up for our rights,” our enemies will forever confound us by multiplying these rights. We will get more and more meaningless rights to fight for – while still being denied Property, as in India.
We Indians have recently fought for and won a “right to information” as well as a “right to education.” We always fight for “human rights.” But we have no Property.
If I were to reword this great song, I would put it thus:
Get up, Stand up,
Stand up for your Liberties.
Yes, there is no “right to smoke.” It is a Liberty.
Excuse me while I exercise this Liberty.
Boom Shankar!
I have noted and agree with most of your statements. Property Rights is a confusing thing personally, though, which neither I can agree with you, nor deny it completely. The reason why Right to Property was revoked as a Fundamental one, I was told, is that if there should be an expansion of Infrastructure, say roads, it was not possible for the State to possess road-side properties from the people who owned them (this being only an example).
ReplyDeletePlease correct me if I'm wrong (anywhere in this comment); I think if people are compensated "enough" by the State in "acquiring" peoples' properties, it should not be viewed as infringement of Right to Property, thereby having no problem in according the Fundamental status to the Right. Am I making at least some sense?
Compensated "enough" is a meaningless concept. The transaction should be voluntary, without use of force. Whatever it takes to achieve this, is enough. But this means Property is inviolable by The State.
ReplyDeleteMusicians are also operating in the market, and sing and write whatever pleases the public. Human psyche is an interesting phenomenon. We want to be viewed as social beings: who value brotherhood over selfishness; equality over efficiency. This stems from the small tribes we came out where everybody is involved in hunting or gathering food -- there are days when you may not be able to go out but somebody will cover for you. There is no exchange of goods but an implicit pact. But as societies grew larger and we started more on relying exchange as a means of improving our quality of life that brotherhood does not apply. But we still carry those remnants. This is precisely what politicians exploit when they promise all the things to people who think they deserve more without working to get them. Paradoxically, people who are in higher echelons also feel "somebody" should be doing "something" to make things equal to everybody.
ReplyDeleteI get it, I think.
ReplyDeleteBut, as in the example I stated earlier, not everyone that need to be involved in the voluntary action, for the success of an expansion project, may be willing to come forward to voluntarily hand-over his/her property to The State. This leads at least to delaying the project up to even shelving it permanently.
Total agreement by the people involved may be rare, even in the most efficient Democracy. Isn't a majority-opinion good enough? If yes, the Right to Property shouldn't be a Fundamental one, for the project to go ahead.
You may argue (and I agree) that the "few" that would be left out of the decision would be the battered lot. How can it be helped?
There may be cases of a family graveyard for example, where the proprietor may be unwilling to sell at any price. In all such cases, I would assert that the project should be adjusted to fit in with this reality, and force should not be misused to acquire the property.
ReplyDelete