The Ambani feud showed how far India is from liberal capitalism and a free market economy
However, the real reason for this malady is to be found in the petroleum minister's comments on the matter. He says:
“These (oil and natural gas) are sovereign assets. The gas belongs to the nation and people…not to any company or individual.”
This is Maoist nonsense about "collective property." In truth, anything designated such belongs to and is under the control of individuals and groups "who claim to represent the people." In this case, the minister himself, and the Total Chacha State, which also "owns" the Supreme Court.
This supreme court must be seen to have fallen off its high pedestal. Such courts are meant to decide on "constitutional issues" only - and the price of gas is definitely not such an issue. The court has also backed the claims of the Total Chacha State to the hilt, which means it is an arm of the State and all the propaganda in our Civics textbooks about a "separation of powers" is nonsense. This is a Total State - a totalitarian one.
The lead editorial in the ToI is also on this gas dispute. This para swings both ways:
Ruling that KG basin gas should be sold at a government-approved price, the court has said natural resources belong to citizens. As the custodian of these resources, government has to ensure gas utilisation maximises general welfare. While this is unexceptionable, issues concerning service delivery remain. It's not clear if official interventions in pricing and/or allocation of natural resources have in all cases helped the public by serving economic logic. In gas, fertiliser and power producers are designated priority customers. Yet, so far as common people are concerned, we're still a long way from building a modern gas distribution infrastructure in the form of an efficiently run national gas grid. Nor have piped gas services been extended beyond its present limited reach. These areas need urgent attention.
But they are dead right on the fact that the common people don't get gas easily. Why? Basic economic theory says that a monopolist will increase price and lower the quantity sold. He will profit from an artificial shortage. The only solution: Competition. Which means Private Property. Let there be hundreds of privately owned gas fields competing for custom. Maoism - which is also Nehruvianism - must go.
The supreme court must go too. Bruno Leoni, the great classical liberal legal philosopher, often writes that such courts are unnecessary in a "private law society." There are no "constitutional issues" then for it to deliberate over. The law is possessed of "certainty." How would such a dispute be decided in such an order?
Very simple. The gas, firstly, would be seen to be belonging to Mukesh Ambani. There would be no question of "collective ownership." The gas would be Private Property.
Secondly, when it comes to exchange, the trading of this gas, all that would matter is the Contract. In a private law world, the unbiased judge would enforce the Contract. The judge would never attempt to alter the terms of the Contract. Thus, legislation on wages, or on rents, would not exist. We would be free. And all our contracts would be secure.
In a private law society, Mukesh Ambani would be secure in his Property and Anil Ambani would be secure in his Contract. Now, both are insecure. This is Unlaw - typical of a kangaroo court. With Private Law, they could still be brothers, not enemies. Both brothers would focus their energies on running their businesses, to the benefit of their shareholders, employees and customers. The nation would prosper. What is happening with socialist Unlaw is the "politicization of economic life" - something Lord Bauer always warned against. This is a waste of entrepreneurial energy, and only fattens socialist lawyers - another evil vested interest.
The English say that all a good magistrate must be possessed of is a "sense of justice." They add that such a sense is based on a fine recognition of what is "mine" and what is "thine."
In the present instance, the highest court in the land has not been possessed of the qualities of a humble magistrate. I am therefore in agreement with Leoni. We don't need supreme courts. Let us think about abolishing it. Ordinary magistrates can surely deliver better Justice that this Maoist kangaroo court.
No comments:
Post a Comment