Abolish The Criminal Justice System

Frederic Bastiat made a telling comment on the socialist demagogues of his time, who were forever making extravagant promises to the proletariat. He said that The State has two hands. One, a gentle hand that gives away. Our The State is always publicly displaying this hand - all its welfare schemes for the poor. Bastiat asked his readers to look instead at the other hand, the one The State always tries to hide, the "harsh hand," the hand that takes away. He was referring then to the tax collectors of France, a sub-human species that was multiplying beyond belief in order to fund the "false philanthropy" of The State's gentle hand. Indeed, the two expressions Bastiat used to describe Socialism - "legal plunder" and "false philanthropy" - ought to resonate in our benighted land.

[Note that the symbol of the CONgress is "The Hand"! Which hand, I wonder. This symbol accompanies this post.]

While Bastiat wrote about tax collectors as the "harsh hand," I would like to draw my reader's attention to our The State's harshest hand - the State Police. What are we to do about them? For decades now we have become fully aware of the fact that the criminal justice system in India does not work. And, as far as the State Police are concerned, they do not seem to offer any "protection" to the citizenry at all. Rather, they are a force of oppression, repression and brutality. They are "lawless" in the true sense of this word. What is the way out of this?

In a recent post on the laws in Merrie Olde England, I pointed out that among the Anglo-Saxon tribes of yore, right up to the Norman conquest, there was nothing at all called "criminal law." All "crimes" were Torts; that is, they were all "crimes against the individual." So, if you hurt someone or his Property, you were hauled to court for a public trial and, if you were found guilty as charged, you had to pay hard cash to the person whom you had injured. This was Justice for the "victim." Further, the injured party was free to collect his own evidence and prosecute his own case.

The Anglo-Saxons had petitioned William, the Norman Conqueror, asking for "no changes in their laws" - but these foreign kings did change things. Their first move was to declare certain acts as "crimes against the King." And their motive was pure greed: they wanted to collect the fines for themselves. It is this greed that began a very unhealthy trend: the King then had to employ his own prosecutors; and, because ordinary people would not co-operate to apprehend those who had offended the monarch, the King also had to employ agents to do the needful. In the process, over the years, the "natural order" that existed among the Anglo-Saxons broke down and an entirely new branch of "criminal law," along with a huge "criminal justice system" came into being. Today, it is The State that employs policemen to enforce its Legislations (all "crimes against the King"); The State employs "public prosecutors"; The State employs jailers and hangmen to punish the guilty - and the VICTIM gets nothing! So, the fine sense of Justice that has always been the hallmark of the Anglo-Saxons has disappeared. The natural order has completely broken down. There is widespread disrespect for the Law. In short - there is injustice as well as social disorder.

Let us pause for a moment to consider all the various "crimes against the King" that modern society, all over the world, is confronted with, and which this King enforces with the armed might of his goons, the police. How is the King in any way disturbed if we smoke joints, if we gamble, or if sexual services are bought and sold by "consenting adults"? Treason, counterfeiting, armed insurrection - well, these should rightly upset a king. But surely the "sovereign parliaments" of our modern, democratic age are overstepping their limits. And The Law has become exactly what Bastiat exclaimed it was:

The law is no longer the refuge of the oppressed, but the arm of the oppressor! The law is no longer a shield, but a sword! The law no longer holds a balance in its august hands, but false weights and false keys! And you want society to be well ordered!

But England is still England; and India is India. Here, for months now, The People have been throwing stones at cops in Kashmir, and the cops have been retaliating with bullets. Over 60 people, very young people, have already died. In other parts of the vast territory, things are not much better. In West Bengal, in Chattisgarh, in Jharkhand, in Manipur - in all these places, there is an openly declared civil war being fought daily between the people and the cops. And the cops are losing. Even if they possess military might, they lack resolve, and their foot-soldiers are all lacking in motivation. In other words, The State has completely lost all "legitimacy."

Quite frankly, I think there is no solution other than to abolish the entire criminal justice system and revert to the one that prevailed among the Anglo-Saxons of yore, which I have just described in brief. If you wish to read more of my views on this important subject, there is a chapter devoted to this is my new book Natural Order: Essays Exploring Civil Government & the Rule of Law, which you can read online by clicking here.

Vedanta Must Get Out Of Niyamgiri

Thanks to a friend on Facebook, my attention was drawn to an excellent article on Niyamgiri by senior journalist Gautam Chikermane, who actually took the trouble to visit the place before writing about it. Chikermane begins by describing the two sides to the dispute:

On one side stands the $7.9 billion (Rs 37,000 crore) Anil Agarwal-managed mining giant Vedanta that wants to extract bauxite from the Niyamgiri Hills to convert into aluminium at its plant in the foothills. Standing by Vedanta is the Naveen Patnaik-led government of Orissa that wants the project to come up fast.

On the other side are the 1,453 people of the Dongria Kondh tribe, who live on Niyamgiri, a mountain they consider sacred. Their belief system hinges on an ecosystem that says everything on the mountain is sacred. From earth goddess Darani Penu (Supreme Goddess) and her husband Kotebali Penu to the lower gods — the arrogant Jatrakudi Penu, who brings drought; Bima Penu, who looks after crops and Takrani Penu, who protects them from disease — to its inhabitants, all is one. The now-popular Niyam Raja Penu, the god who protects the tribals from unnatural deaths, is one of many gods that the animistic-polytheist Dongria Kondh tribe worships.

Now, the fact is that these 1,453 people who live on the hill do NOT want to sell it for ANY amount of money - because they believe it is their God. Chikermane writes:

“When the factory construction (of Vedanta refinery) began, we realised that this will be a rakshsa (evil monster) that will devour our hill,” the Niyamgiri Suraksha Parishad President Kumti Majhi said. “This hill is not a thing to be sold, it is for living.” The analogy with James Cameron’s Avatar is true.

Once again, everything boils down to Principles - and my Principles are entirely based on the Inviolability of Property. The hills belong to these people. If they do not want to sell these hills, Vedanta must look elsewhere for bauxite. The planet contains lots of bauxite - it is a super-abundant ore. Vedanta is a multinational, so it can go to Africa for bauxite. But Niyamgiri it cannot have - because those who own it do not want to sell.

Such cases happen all the time. Suppose a highway is to be built and the authorities want to take over a graveyard or bulldoze a temple - and the owners object. Even an ordinary house can have a great deal of sentimental value that will make its owners refuse all offers to buy it.

Thus, the Naveen Patnaik government in Orissa cannot be allowed to misuse Force in this case. Anyway, this is not an instance where "eminent domain" can apply - for there is no "public purpose" here at all.

Chikermane, in his article, raises "seven questions" - and I will answer all of them.

One, should the world’s second-fastest growing economy consciously leave its statistically-insignificant but humanely-worrisome 1,453-strong group of people behind?

My answer: There are millions of ascetics in India - the sadhus, our holy men. Should they be forced to "develop"? Indeed, the most important question in Political Economy is the rightful domain of force, because all that The State possesses is organized force. In this instance, I believe force cannot and should not be applied.

On the other hand, The Market economy is about free choices. No force is ever used in The Market. People are always free to drop out of the rat race. There are many nations who hate work and prefer leisure and an easy life - like the Goans, whose motto is "Susegaad" which means "Relax." In the West, lots of people "downsize" and opt for alternative lifestyles. This is a personal choice. Peter Bauer, the great development economist, often wrote that in many underdeveloped nations he found that the people were not "poor"; rather, they were "needless." Chikermane quotes Kadra Bamunu, an axe-carrying farmer in the hill’s middle ranges, who told him, through a translator: “We don’t want any car or bike. We need only that which our stomachs want now. What we need, we grow.” This is indeed the "needlessness" Bauer wrote about. And Bauer offered the solution: Let traders be free to offer these people "incentive goods" - like a radio. They will then "work" to earn it - and "development" will proceed naturally.

On to the second question:

Two... is it morally right to leave this chunk of Indians without healthcare, education, electricity, communication? Just 1 km into the hills and my mobile connectivity disappeared. I passed a signboard near a village that said it “has been electrified under Rajiv Gandhi Grameen Vidyutikaran Yojana”, but there was no electricity there. I felt I was lost, the tribals couldn’t care less. On the way down, I met a midwife who said three tribals died of diarrhoea recently. Vedanta Chief Operating Officer Mukesh Kumar said it is impossible to get them to take medicines — they just keep it on top of their huts and offer it to the gods who they believe will protect them. “Can we allow such andhvishwas (blind faith) in our citizens?” he asked.

There is no proper electricity anywhere in India - because it is a State Monopoly. (While I was writing this post, the electricity failed, as it always does, every single day.) The Market should be allowed to step in - but, then again, if these people refuse to buy electricity, no force can be used to make them consume it. Ditto for mobile phones. As far as "education" is concerned, they are extremely fortunate not to have had their minds destroyed by it.

Let us now turn to the quote from the Chief Operating Officer of Vedanta, on andhvishwas. He uses the word "allow." Well, of course this should be allowed. I have myself visited the church in Vailankanni three times to drink the Holy Water which is believed to protect health. Millions in South India have also done so. You get buses in Goa bound for Vailankanni. Should this be outlawed? What about the ice lingam in Amarnath? Once again, what is "morally right" is only the question of the applicability of force. My answer: Leave them alone. On now to Chikcermane's third, fourth and fifth questions:

Three, does development have any meaning? So far, it meant an increase in per capita income that would come from jobs in the organised sector, largely in industry and mining. A large number of companies have taken up projects to help the local population where they set up industries become “employable”, through training and skills. Development has meant the ability to earn and consume goods and services. It has been an uneven development so far, but the trickle down is not far. What do you do when a group of people tells you that they don’t need any of this, can you force it down their throats?

Four, does it mean that if development as defined is rejected, Niyamgiri will remain a sort of tribal island — beautiful, no doubt, but an island still? The argument against it is: they don’t know what the benefits of development are, let them taste decent living, earn a decent income, then let them decide, right now, there is a consumption-asymmetry. Can we allow that, should we allow that?

Five, who will decide the direction of this development? If you think the answer is “free markets”, perish the thought. The Niyamgiri incident is a blatant joke on the free-market system. How can an illiterate, inarticulate, ill-informed group of people take decisions about their land, their lives against some of the world’s most sophisticated minds behind the state government of Orissa and Vedanta? The information-asymmetry is just too wide to even begin a discussion. Today, the two can’t even sit on the same table. On the other side, will natural resources such as bauxite or iron ore be left untapped because it is the natural habitat of tribals.

Mining is a "primary sector" activity - very primitive. On the other hand, tourism is a "service industry" in the tertiary sector, very advanced. Now that Niyamgiri is in the news, and these tribals have been likened to those in the film Avatar, it is not at all impossible to believe that the area will see thousands and maybe even millions of visitors. The picture accompanying this post is of the Niyamgiri hills. They look quite beautiful - and should attract visitors. Then, they will trade goods and services, learn from each other - and "develop." The original inhabitants of the beaches of Goa were all illiterate fishermen. But, thanks to tourism, they have become richer and "taste decent living, earn a decent income."

Chikermane asks: "Will natural resources such as bauxite or iron ore be left untapped because it is the natural habitat of tribals." Why not? The beautiful hills of the Western Ghats, especially in Goa, are more valuable as real estate than iron ore mines. Go and see Kudremukh, Chikermane. Has any "development" happened to the local population? I am confident that even if GOLD is discovered under the Grand Casino in Monte Carlo, they will not tear it down to dig for it.

Chikermane also asks: "Who will decide the direction of this development?" Again, the only answer is the Property Owner. We trade Property and Knowledge. This is done by Individuals. The "collective" has no rights here. The State has NO ROLE in "development." The area of development is the economic arena - and that is the preserve of The Market.

Chikermane asks: "How can an illiterate, inarticulate, ill-informed group of people take decisions about their land, their lives against some of the world’s most sophisticated minds behind the state government of Orissa and Vedanta?" This is the kind of evil nonsense that the Nobel laureate Gunnar Myrdal preached in his Asian Drama. It was Myrdal who sold to the West the idea that the illiterate poor of the Third World could NOT take correct decisions in The Market - and, so, these decisions should be taken for them by Central Planners, the English-speaking "economists" in suits and ties whom Myrdal considered an "intellectual-moral elite." The works of Bauer have totally demolished this ridiculous view. And the harsh reality of our "misplanned" India have only served to confirm it. Chikermane should visit any Indian market and observe things carefully for himself. If he does, he will see that it is the poor and the illiterate who take the most pains to ensure that they get the best deals - while the "educated" rich are easily conned. On to his sixth question:

Six, where is our political economy headed? “I am your soldier in Delhi,” Rahul Gandhi told a small, 5,000-strong rally at Lanjigarh a day after the Vedanta verdict. “Development does not mean destroying a mountain or oppressing the poor. Look at how we are bringing development to Haryana and Andhra Pradesh. Our government in Delhi will fight for you.” I agree with his politics — if the state government, particularly its khaki uniform, has lost its credibility and the Centre has moved in to fill the void, a political advantage should be taken. Clearly, Niyamgiri is not the last such act on the political theatre.

Our socialist democratic theatre of the absurd is heading nowhere. We MUST make Property inviolable. Leon Louw, the South African libertarian who has helped many African nations write their Constitutions, once told me that "even if your Constitution does not guarantee Property, the Government can do that." Good advice, indeed. On to Chikermane's last question:

Seven — and this is the most difficult question — how do you propose to bring economic well-being to Niyamgiri? The Dongria don’t want it. But they can’t be left behind as India progresses. The two have to meet at some point and that point doesn’t have to be one of conflict. Instead of looking at the two players as hostiles, it is the role of the government, policymakers and thinkers to throw up creative ideas that help bridge this gap. Remember, Niyamgiri is not about land acquisition that can be fixed as Parliament debates the bill shortly. It is about choices — national, corporate and individual. To view it as an either-or is a grave error all of us could be getting trapped into.

I have already suggested tourism. What the Dongria people do not want is the conversion of their sacred mountains into sheet metal. However, like the rest of us, I am sure that they too would like to be better off. But this requires Individual effort and enterprise. All that The State must deliver is Justice. In his Two Treatises On Government (1690), John Locke wrote these immortal words:

Where there is no Property, there is no Justice.

So, let there be Justice. Let there be Property. Let there be Liberty.

And let us all unitedly fight against the Legal Plunder that our cronyist-socialist system is all about.

The Law - In Merrie Olde England

In yesterday's post, I mentioned Bruno Leoni and Friedrich Hayek as the two legal philosophers in modern times who have pointed out that Legislation and Law are entirely different things, and that what Leoni called the "inflated legislation" of our democratic age is the most serious threat to Property and Liberty that we have ever faced.

However, what sustains inflated legislation is that same miseducated "public opinion." Things were not so in an earlier age - and certainly not in the Merrie Olde England of yore. Sudha Shenoy once wrote me that ordinary people in the England of the past always considered Legislation as the King's Instrument - as an interference in their rights - and turned to the "common law" for their protection.

Leoni, in his Freedom and the Law mentions an interesting fact about the Anglo-Saxon tribes. I do not remember the exact Latin words used, but when William, the Norman Conqueror, took over the island in 1066 AD, the ordinary people petitioned him in these terms: "We do not want any changes in the laws of the Anglo-Saxons."

What were these laws of the Anglo-Saxon tribes? Some answers emerge from Bruce Benson's The Enterprise of Law, which includes this vital history. I earnestly recommend this book to all friends of Liberty. I will mention some important features of their lives: First, that the kings of the Anglo-Saxons never "made" Law, and were just warlords. The only laws of the tribespeople were those of Property, Contract and Tort - entirely "private law." Indeed, there was nothing known as "criminal law" at all - and all crimes were treated as torts. Greedy Norman kings changed all this by legislating certain acts as "crimes against the King" so that they could pocket the fines collected.

As for the "common law" - the history books say that it was Henry II who "founded" common law. Yet, this Norman king who restored order in England never actually passed any statutes. All that is mentioned in the books is that he swore to the people that the kingdom would revert to the laws that were in force during the reign of his grandfather, Henry I.

As we look into the later period, after the signing of the Magna Carta, we come across one important work - that of the great English judge, Bracton. I have only read excerpts from this liberally quoted in the books I have managed to get hold of, and what Bracton makes clear is that the genius of the English was their reliance on "customs and usage" - and their strong antipathy to any form of written law. There was very little lex in England, Bracton says of the England of the 13th century. Law was always "found" in England; never "made."

Note that the English people never ever had a written Constitution. Note that their Sovereign still does not "make" any law. With Parliament as Sovereign, there has been a sea change.

To conclude: The most important lesson that I took away from the works of Hernando de Soto is that the rise of the West has nothing to do with any factor other than Law. It is the better "rules of the game" that enabled them to succeed. In this game, the most important rules are those of Property and Contract - without which Capital can never be accumulated. And, as this blog has consistently been pointing out, Capital Accumulation is the Key to Civilization, just as Capital Consumption takes nations and peoples on the opposite road.

Thank about it.

The Song - Take #2, Hayek, And Thatcher

My last post, on Baba Pagal Nath Charsi's take on Pink Floyd's "We Don't Need No Education," received a highly encouraging response from my old school chum, Bruce Stidston, who was the drummer of our school rock band while I was lead vocal. It is not exactly what the Baba had in mind - "We Don't Need No Legislation" - but it is very interesting nevertheless. Bruce writes, from England:

Now call me cynical, but I cannot think of politicians without thinking of a bunch of pig-snouts all jostling for any power, money and control they can extract from a constantly replenished food trough — a trough that's constantly replenished (on pain of imprisonment for tax avoidance) by the honest taxpayer. With a bit of creative licence, the trough becomes The Bowl.

So I propose that, instead of The Wall, we have The Bowl. I'm sure you can readily picture the album cover!

He attached a picture with his mail, and that is the picture accompanying this post.

Here is Bruce's song:

We don't need no central planning
We don't need no price controls
No interference with our households
Chacha, leave our lives alone.
Hey! Chacha! Leave our lives alone!
All in all, you're just another snout in the Bowl
All in all, you're just another snout in the Bowl.

Verse 2: [in the children's voices]
-----------
We don't need your 'Education'
We don't need your State control
No propaganda in the classroom
Chacha - leave us kids alone!
Hey! Chacha! Leave us kids alone!
All in all, you're just another snout in the Bowl
All in all, you're just another snout in the Bowl.

Verse 3:
-----------
We don't need your Centralism
We don't need your bungling laws
No public 'servants' enslaving people
No Statists manipulating the poor.
Hey! Chacha! Leave our people alone!
All in all, you're just another snout in the Bowl
All in all, you're just another snout in the Bowl.

[Teachers' mocking voices]
"Don't argue, the State knows better!"
"I'm not here to help you, I'm here to Govern you!"
"If I want to justify my place at the Bowl, I need to control your life!"
"You! Yes, you and the other intellectuals — shut up!"

Really encouraging, this. Hopefully, we will have a great song - or even an album - someday soon.

However, the Baba feels that "We Don't Need No Legislation" MUST be the title and the central focus of the new song. This idea, that Legislation is NOT Law was first mooted, to my knowledge, by the great Bruno Leoni. His views influenced Friedrich Hayek - and Hayek wrote a three volume masterpiece on the subject, titled Law, Legislation & Liberty. In this, he broke ground with his earlier work, The Constitution of Liberty. I hope Bruce will find the time to read at least the first two (slim) volumes of Law, Legislation & Liberty - and, to egg him along, let me quote from a speech Margaret Thatcher delivered in the House of Commons in 1981, which can be found here. She said:

I am a great admirer of Professor Hayek. Some of his books are absolutely supreme—"The Constitution of Liberty" and the three volumes on "Law, Legislation and Liberty"—and would be well read by almost every hon. Member.

So, Brucey, let's give it another shot.

It must be "We Don't Need No Legislation." The Baroness Thatcher would surely agree.

It's Showtime, Folks!

Professor Roger Waters fired the first shot - a great big cannonball, like Cannonball Adderley.



Here is the second shot - Cannonball Adderley with Count Basie and the Big Band. I mean "Atomic Basie"!



All that jazz!



Here goes:

We Don't Need No Legislation

by

Baba Pagal Nath Charsi



We don't need no legislation,

We don't need no man-made rules,

Property must be protected,

Freedom must be ours too.



Hey!

MP!

Leave our spliffs alone!



Hey!

MP!

Leave our lands alone!



Hey!

MP!

Leave our lives alone!

All along you're just another,

Prick in The House.



That's right, just another,

Prick in The House!

How do y'all like it? Some more verses will have to be composed.



Next step: To get a band together to play it.



Baba Pagal Nath Charsi & The Ganjeras.



Money for nothing,

Chicks for free,

Play my guitar on the MTV!



Ha ha ha.

Socialism's Epitaph - Chaos & Confusion

Last evening I was in my den trying to get a decent buzz going while the television in the other room was going on and on about "land acquisition" by The State. It was then that I overheard an Honourable Member of Parliament use a very interesting word to describe those whose lands get acquired - and the word he used was "oustee." Quite a word, huh? How would you like to be an oustee?

And there it was, in the news this morning, the report, only to be expected, that thousands and thousands of oustees have descended upon New Delhi to protest their ousting.

So let me quote Bastiat again:

The law is no longer the refuge of the oppressed, but the arm of the oppressor! The law is no longer a shield, but a sword! The law no longer holds a balance in its august hands, but false weights and false keys! And you want society to be well ordered!

Bastiat went on to add what happens when the Socialist Principle of Legal Plunder becomes the law:

Your principle has placed these words above the entrance of the legislative chamber: "Whosoever acquires any influence here can obtain his share of legal plunder."

And what has been the result? All classes have flung themselves upon the doors of the chamber, crying: "A share of the plunder for me, for me!"...

And are you not appalled by the immense, radical, and deplorable innovation which will be introduced into the world on the day when the law itself is authorized to commit the very crime that its function is to punish - on the day when it is turned, in theory and in practice, against Liberty and Property?

You deplore the symptoms that modern society exhibits; you shudder at the disorder that prevails in institutions and ideas. But is it not your principle that has perverted everything, both ideas and institutions?

Socialism can never work. Their principles are perverse. The don't understand the manner in which society functions - and they never did. Their ideas are, quite literally, "anti-social." They schemed up an Utopia completely divorced from reality, from human nature itself, from the history of civilization, from "natural law," from the laws of Economics. They misuse State power; they misuse force - and this is what "legal plunder" is all about. Chaos and confusion must be the inevitable result. Along with complete moral degradation and the collapse of civilization.

There is another inevitable consequence - of which Bastiat warned: and that is - the people would lose all respect for the laws, the State and its institutions.

What, indeed, is Law? The other year, a student of Law gave me this answer: "Law is an instrument of social control." He is being taught the principles of oppression.

So let us hear Bastiat on this subject:

Hence, if anything is self-evident, it is this: Law is the organization of the natural right to legitimate self-defence; it is the substitution of collective force for individual forces, to act in the sphere in which they have the right to act, to do what they have the right to do: to guarantee security of person, liberty, and property rights, to cause Justice to reign over all.

And if there existed a nation constituted on this basis, it seems to me that order would prevail there in fact as well as in theory. It seems to me that this nation would have the simplest, most economical, least burdensome, least disturbing, least officious, most just, and consequently most stable government that can be imagined, whatever its political form might be.

And as to "political form," Bastiat was a great critic of Rousseau - whom he considered to be not ahead of his time, as his followers claimed, but "two hundred centuries behind." Bastiat sat in the legislative chamber alright - but he exhibited only disdain for legislators, those whom Roussseau elevated to such great heights, so far above mankind. Bastiat wrote:

Their faith is in the legislator, not in mankind. Ours is in mankind, not in the legislator.

Roche writes: "Bastiat warned that political power was the cause of France's social decline and could never provide solutions to the problem. He asked that Frenchmen look outside the political arena and concluded:

...there is only one remedy: time. People have to learn, through hard experience, the enormous disadvantage there is in plundering one another....

And this goes on until people learn to recognize and defend their true interests. Thus, we always reach the same conclusion:

The only remedy is in the progressive enlightenment of public opinion.

Property and Liberty are but two sides of the same fundamental idea: Liberty is connected with the act of production, while Property is connected with the thing produced. Then follows Exchange, and Competition. A harmonious Society is formed. And all becomes clear.

I hope my reader now realizes where our greatest error lies - in handing over to this Socialist State the monopoly over education. Today, the minister in charge of this is a socialist lawyer. We have a lot more suffering in store for us. More chaos. More confusion. More social disorder.

On A Parliament - Against The People

Our socialist Parliament has just passed the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damages Bill 2010. Two curious facts: The liability limit was trebled because of the Opposition. Chacha would have preferred to sell our lives cheaper. Second, read this:

The Lower House cleared the Bill after science and technology minister Prithviraj Chavan dropped the word “intent” from the legislation. The proposal had limited the liability by wording it as “act of supplier or his employees, done with the intent to cause nuclear damage”, which meant that the government would have to prove motive.

Mischievous people, our ministers. Torts always apply to unintended damages. But then, we in socialist India have no relief in torts. There is no "Rule of Law" here; there is only Legislation, as in this case. And Legislation is NOT Law.

I also found this section of the news report interesting:

Rejecting the Opposition’s allegations that the Bill was aimed at benefiting US companies, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said: “I categorically state that the Bill is a completion of a journey to end the nuclear apartheid which the world had imposed on India... To say that this has been brought to promote American interests, to promote American corporations, I think, this is far from the truth.”

“Nuclear power is an option we should simply not ignore,” Singh added, explaining that it was the most cost effective option to increase power generation capacity.

Supporting the Bill, Congress member of Parliament Manish Tewari said nuclear power was essential to achieve the targeted 9% growth in the gross domestic product. Almost 40% of Indian households are still without electricity and the government sees nuclear power as a viable option to meet the growing energy needs of the world’s second fastest growing major economy.

Yeah, nuclear power is cost effective ONLY if liability for damages is limited by this legislation. The news report quotes a nuclear industry lobbyist saying, “globally, there is no insurance coverage available for suppliers in the nuclear business."

Further, these nuclear power plants are all going to be run by The State. Mixed-up economy blues continue to play. They want to expand the Role of The State in every which way they can. They refuse to privatize electricity - in which case hundreds of private businessmen would set up power plants using gas, which is cheap. And safe.

Ultimately, it all boils down to PRINCIPLES. Socialists have never possessed principles of any kind. After all, their strategy is to use "education" as propaganda. Chacha uses the word "truth." Actually, he is an enemy of truth. An enemy of reason.

So let us turn away from Chacha and look towards a man of truth: Frederic Bastiat. His biographer, George Charles Roche III, reports that his last words were: "The Truth." And this is what he said about PRINCIPLES:

...only principles have the power to satisfy men's minds, to win their hearts, and to gain the consent of their consciences.

What do we do now? I suggest local communities rise to throw out any nuclear power plant coming up in their area - for it is they who will die first. This is the NIMBY theory: Not In My Back Yard.

And where is the biggest nuclear power plant coming up? According to this report, the biggest one is coming up in Ratnagiri, on the Konkan coast, quite close to Goa. Ratnagiri is where the world's best mangoes come from - the legendary Alphonso. If there is an accident, there will be no Alphonsoes for the next 200 generations. And no amount of fiat paper money can compensate for such a loss.

Song of the Day: Michael Jackson's "All I Wanna Say Is That They Don't Really Care About Us."

Here is the video.