They Don't Really Care About Us

While scandals on government corruption never seem to end, it has been useful for the personnel of our The State to find an excuse to point to private-sector "greed" - and thereby portray themselves as our "protectors" from that greed.

The case in point is about our new private airlines. There isn't a single Indian who would prefer a return to the days of State monopoly over domestic civil aviation. Yet, because of the fact that some of their "spot fares" - that is, on tickets booked shortly before departure - seem too high, our minister for civil aviation, Praful Patel of the NCP, has been making some very strange noises. According to this news report, the minister is "setting up an economic advisory council, which will meet on 10 December to discuss what are reasonable fares." In the same report, the minister makes this claim in support of his interventionism: "We are here to help the sector to grow while keeping in mind interest of the passenger."

For one, the huge taxes being levied on air travel disprove this grandiose claim. These taxes are, in fact, screwing the passenger. They keep our unsafe railways afloat - who deserve to be out-competed.

Second - the ministry continues to bar the entry of new players. The only answer to high fares is competition. That is, the only counter to one company's greed is the greed of other companies. The greedy State will only make things worse.

Third - in the field of civil aviation, our The State is very much a greedy player. This minister runs Air India and Indian Airlines, and their various off-shoots. Because their losses are covered by the taxpayer, these State-owned airlines offer "unfair competition" to their private sector rivals. In a free market, they would have folded up long ago.

Thus, the passenger-taxpayer is being doubly screwed. The State must therefore exit civil aviation completely. Thereafter, the sector must be completely de-regulated. Only then can the "interest of the passenger" be served. Indeed, the poor Indian passenger would then probably be served a drink after take-off - something our The State prohibits today. Triply screwed!

The most inspiring story of de-regulation of civil aviation comes from the US. They used to have a Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB) that not only regulated fares, but also awarded routes. Market principles did not work at all - and political graft ruled the roost. Anthony Sampson's history of the early years of civil aviation Empires of the Sky: The Politics, Contests and Cartels of World Airlines (1985) noted that, with the CAB, airlines had a "murky relationship with the US President."

Then, in 1977, along came Jimmy Carter with different ideas. He installed Alfred Kahn, an economist, as head of CAB. Kahn did the unthinkable: he de-regulated the CAB out of existence! No more CAB! This "father of airline de-regulation," as he is now known, brought into being a host of "low cost carriers" - like People Express and Southwest Airlines. Kahn inspired Europe - and the Thatcher era saw Freddie Laker taking on the "Big Five" with his SkyTrain across the Atlantic. The rest is history.

We in India need an Alfred Kahn - not this NCP man, Praful Patel, with his double-speak.

Praful Patel hails from a political family - his father was a prominent CONgressman. His constituency lies in Gondia, in the poor Vidarbha region of Maharashtra. He is also big in business - a sort of "bidi king." These business interests have since diversified - into pharmaceuticals, real estate and packaging. This apart, he also runs the "Gondia Education Society" that, according to his profile on the party website, "imparts education to 80,000 students in all disciplines ranging from Arts, Commerce, Engineering, Law, Pharmacy, Information Technology, and Computer Sciences."

According to Wikipedia, Praful Patel is "a former Director of Jet Airways."

Methinks we need an Alfred Kahn.

On Sociology - As An "Abuse Of Reason"

Today is Margaret Thatcher's 85th birthday. As Prime Minister of Great Britain, she famously declared: "There is no such thing called society." This post is written in full support of her view.

If you visit Delhi University, you might notice that right opposite the Delhi School of Economics stands the Delhi School of Sociology. From the former emerged Amartya Sen and Manmohan Singh - both calling for State "education" for the sheeple. And, from the latter, comes Jean Dreze, Professor Emeritus, great champion of NREGA ditch-digging, "right to food" and other statist schemes. Indeed, Dreze has co-authored many books with Amartya Sen; they are bosom buddies. I have just discussed the "corruption in Economic Science" (in two parts, here and here). Today, let me say something about Sociology.

Jean Dreze is French - and Sociology originated in France. The man who invented this subject is August Comte, considered by many to be a "madman." Comte was a student of Henri de Saint-Simon (1760-1825), one of the world's first "socialists" - and his great idea was to vest all Property in the State, and have the State directed by industrial chiefs and "men of science." As to what exactly was the "science of society" Saint-Simon had no real answer. This was what August Comte (1798-1857) served up to humanity. Comte called his science "positivism" - and, with this epistemological principle, Sociology was born. The central tenet of positivism is that human behaviour is objectively measurable. Thus Emile Durkheim, another French sociologist, studied suicide by examining statistical suicide rates! So, the idea was that society would be subjected to measurement, and these sociologists / social scientists would then run the whole of society in a scientific manner.

Quite naturally, a science that offered so much power to those who mastered it spread rapidly. In Vienna a school of "logical positivism" emerged - and they were enemies of the Austrian School economists like Mises, also in Vienna at the time. But positivism entered Economics too - and no less an economist than Milton Friedman has upheld positivism as THE method of Economics. Positivism entered Law - and stood opposed to all those who believed in "natural law." Positivism entered Psychology, through "psychometrics" - and also in the works of "behaviourists" like John B Watson and BF Skinner, who, like Comte, thought they had found ways of controlling society and even re-making it. Megalomaniacs, all.

But what is "society"? And how is society to be studied and understood? Here again, it was the great Carl Menger (1840-1921) who provided the answer, and thereby lit the path for all his worthy followers. After his path-breaking Principles of Economics (1871), Menger wrote just one more book - and this time it was on the Methodology of the Social Sciences (1883). The key question Menger put forward was this:

How can it be that institutions which serve the common welfare and are extremely significant for its development come into being without a ‘common will’ directed towards their establishment?

It is this question that establishes the central difference between all the positivists and the Austrian School economists. To positivists, society is inert and what matters are the commands given to it. Social scientists measure society and come up with the "correct" commands. Central economic planners do this - with all their data. Sociologists do this - after Comte and Durkheim. And so do lawyers who view law in the positivist light - as "commands of the sovereign." Note that Professor Jean Dreze of the Delhi School of Sociology is relying on Professor Suresh Tendulkar of the Delhi School of Economics to correctly "measure" poverty. Bah!

What Menger and his followers - true scientists, all - established is that society produces a lot on its own, because of the workings of INDIVIDUALS. Language, money, markets, and even law have emerged from within society, without any "common will" directing things, without any commands from on high. The real mystery we must investigate is how this happens. How do the individuals who make up society "act"? I have written a newspaper column describing some of these issues, here.

To truly understand the "madness" of Saint-Simon and August Comte, I suggest a slim book by Friedrich Hayek called The Counter-Revolution of Science: Studies on the Abuse of Reason. It is perhaps Hayek's greatest contribution to the history of ideas. The title is dramatic - and apt. What positivists parade as "science" is nothing but the "abuse of reason." It is extremely dangerous. And our universities are full of it.

Another recommended read: My brief article on why the political value of "community" is unsuitable to a market society, which is individualistic. This article takes the Hayekian argument one step forward.

Why Do We Need "Political Representation"?

In yesterday's post on the forthcoming assembly elections in Bihar, I said, very rudely, "Take this vote and shove it." Continuing on the same theme, today I would like to pose the all-important question: Why do we need "political representation"? Why do we need to vote at all? Let us examine the issue from a historical perspective. And let us look at England - from where it all began.

In the good old days, kings ruled England. That is, they collected taxes, built castles, and waged wars. What is noteworthy is that they did not make law. The happy Anglo-Saxon tribes lived under the "common law" - which was based on custom and usage, which was largely unwritten and uncodified, and which was "found," not "made." I guess we can call theirs a "private law society."

The kings of England were supreme in only one area - and that was public administration; particularly, the administration of justice. Here, the king had no peers.

Then, one day, sometime in the 14th century, one king had a problem with raising taxes - and it is he who first called for a "parliament of representatives." These were representatives of the towns and boroughs, the church and the nobility: all those who had to fork out these taxes. Since the English value tradition - and this has always been their strength - a precedent was set, and parliaments of representatives were thereafter regularly called to agree on the king's demand for taxes. Nothing else. There was no "legislation." Once parliament had agreed on the king's demands, it was dissolved, and the king ruled as usual - without parliament.

Those were the good old days.

Let us now look at the present day.

Today, the government comes from within parliament itself - and they do not depend on taxes any more. If they are short of money, they print it, or borrow. The "representation of the taxpayer" has ceased. This is what Ludwig von Mises had to say on this unholy development:

Modern constitutions, the political systems of all nations that are not ruled by barbarian despots, are based upon the fact that the government depends financially upon the people, indirectly upon the men that the voters have elected for the constitutional assembly. And this system means that the government has no power to spend anything that has not been given it by the people, through the constitutional procedures which make it possible for the government to collect taxes. This is the fundamental political institution. And it is a fundamental political problem if the government can inflate. If the government has the power to print its own money, then this constitutional procedure becomes absolutely useless.

[This quote is from lecture notes taken by Bettina Bien Greaves. These notes are now available in book form. You can read more about this lecture - and this book - here.]

Of course, not all British prime ministers have ignored the taxpayer. Here is a video of the great Margaret Thatcher telling the people that "there is no such thing called public money." Do watch the video and then think of our Chacha Manmohan and his senseless spending based on the printing press and colossal borrowing. Or think about the USSA - where the central State has all the money it needs without bothering about the taxpayers' consent, or the consent of their representatives.

So, we have come a long way on the Highway to Hell since the good old days. Now, our political representatives no longer represent us as taxpayers; rather, they represent tax parasites - and their lobbies.

And what is worse - we live in a world of what Bruno Leoni accurately called "inflated legislation": we have rules, rules and more rules. We are ruled, not represented. And do recall that the kings of England never made law.

So why do we need the vote?

Why do we need all these MPs and MLAs?

Indeed, why do we need a Prime Minister and Cabinet?

As I have detailed in my latest book - which you can read here - there is a "natural order" in civilized human society. I am certainly not the first to think along these lines - in my collection of Basiat's essays, which you can read here, the second essay is on "natural order." Adam Smith too looked at human society as self-regulating and self-ordered. That is, Thomas Hobbes was wrong. It was Hobbes who recommended Leviathan to us all - and in that book he predicted that without the State, society would degenerate into a "war of each against all." Hobbes said that human interests are always in conflict. Bastiat said there was harmony. Which view is right?

Consider this thought experiment: Suppose you carry a tray of bananas to any crowded Indian bazaar, will anyone snatch and steal them - except for the cop? On the other hand, if you carry a tray of bananas before a group of monkeys, they will all snatch and steal - and there will ensue the Hobbesian war of each against all. Humans trade; they do not snatch. Monkeys snatch - because they cannot trade.

And why do cops snatch bananas? Because power corrupts. It is as simple as that.

There is also this hard-hitting article by an American, on American cops, that is worth reading.

To conclude: It is my considered opinion that we Indians would be infinitely better off if we abolished our The State and all its works. We will live freely, peacefully, gainfully and honourably in human society. Today, thanks to the fucking vote, we inhabit the planet of the apes.

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.