We Need A Big Bang

The other day, I wrote about a Mint editorial titled "A crisis of legitimacy" - which said that Chacha Manmohan S Gandhi has flopped real bad. Now, another major league editor has echoed this view: Shekhar Gupta of The Indian Express, in a column titled "The meteoric fall of UPA-2."

Gupta writes:

In the Westminster system, whatever his personality, the prime minister is where the cabinet’s centre of gravity resides. If you look at UPA 2, it has not seemed to be the case at least in the last six months.

He concludes with what he thinks will emerge from the ongoing AICC meet:

... usual swagger, verbose platitudes and loud declarations of loyalty and sycophancy.

At the AICC meet, the CONgress has given Sonia Gandhi another term as President - and she has loudly supported Chacha.

Yet, politics is about political ideas and ideals - not personalities. As far as Sonia's and Chacha's politics go, we know all about that - welfare. Add to that "central planning," central banking, PSUs, a hatred for Private Property, a hatred for free markets, and a hatred for Liberty. And yes: a great desire to "educate" the young - forcibly!

It is this "idea" that has failed. This is "knowledge failure."

So what do we do?

I found one column arguing for "radical overhaul":

A big bang cleansing of institutions, bureaucracy, corporations and political milieu is required. This is unlikely to happen of its own accord. The collective energy of the people rising up to demand this radical overhaul may well have to be the trigger. Such “revolution” is only likely after major, disruptive change.

I am all for the "big bang" - but this certainly need not be "major, disruptive change."



If Property becomes constitutionally inviolable - and Liberty prevails - there comes about "order," not "disruption." Legislations, edicts, decrees - these are disruptive. In the critical area of money, it is inflationism that is "disruptive." Many have said socialism is "anti-social."



There is a "natural order" in city markets. When Srinagar, Kashmir, returns to "normalcy," the pictures you see are of streets packed with people, cars and two-wheelers - all of them out to do their shopping.



So, it is essential that we change the focus of our thinking of a "social order" - from that of a monolithic sub-continent being magically and benevolently ruled from Nude Elly, and discover the pre-existing social order all around us. We must think of city and town markets, aggressive urbanisation - and Mayors.



In other words, where central knowledge has failed, only local knowledge can work. The core of "politics" ought to be restricted to that polis. Competing urban governments put government itself on The Market; a "vote with the feet" is a more effective way to achieve good local government than the ballot - an insight that came from Charles Tiebout.



Thus, the "idea" that I am suggesting - of city and town markets, free exchange based on Private Property - is not in any way disruptive of society. On the contrary, it is "socialism" which is disruptive - with its nationalisation, land acquisition, and endless legislation. All these are the ways of "interventionism" - an activity that can be rightfully called "irrational," or even "criminally insane."



(If you click on the label "interventionism" on the right-hand bar, you will find many posts in support of my opinion.]



So the Great Big Bang must first of all be in our own minds - the conception of another idea.



If we achieve this and find the "collective energy of the people rising up to demand this radical overhaul" - then they will know "what exactly to demand." One possibility of such a big bang being peaceful is a Magna Carta style "Charter of Liberties" signed by the highest functionary representative of State Sovereignty on public demand. A previous post on constitutional "limits" on The State in today's circumstances addresses the question "what exactly do we demand" in detail.



Before you ponder over these important issues, it might help to first read Murray Rothbard's essay "Do you hate The State?" Comparing his "big bang" position on what needs to be done about The State to the middle-of-the-road "gradualist" position of other "libertarians," Rothbard concluded thus:

Perhaps the word that best defines our distinction is "radical." Radical in the sense of being in total, root-and-branch opposition to the existing political system and to the State itself. Radical in the sense of having integrated intellectual opposition to the State with a gut hatred of its pervasive and organized system of crime and injustice. Radical in the sense of a deep commitment to the spirit of liberty and anti-statism that integrates reason and emotion, heart and soul.

The opposite of radical is "conservative" - the one who wants to "conserve" and preserve the existing political system. We need to think "radical." Radical change.



Another good read: This LRC column titled "Who has integrity?"