There has been a casualty in our para-parliament: the Holy Pope himself!
Here is Swaminathan Aiyar tearing to shreds, on MORAL grounds, the Pope’s opposition to outsourcing. Basically, Aiyar proves that this is a white man’s pope, who does not believe in one world. Aiyar concludes by asking the pope to correct himself in his next encyclical.
Yes, the pope is fallible.
And this is not the first time an economist has taken a firm stand against papal errors. There is a great essay by Peter, Lord Bauer, against the errors in Pope Paul’s thinking. He uses very strong language. This essay can be found in his last book, From Subsistence to Exchange and other essays. The title of the book says it all – what real “development economics” is about: those who live in "subsistence" must move to the "exchange" economy. There is no other way. I warmly recommend this book to all.
Yes, even the Holy Pope himself is fallible.
In which case, how can we ever entrust our The State with the task of education?
We are asking for the “uniformity of error.”
Aiyar’s column also drums home the important lesson that knowledge must be free if errors are to be weeded out. Aiyar probably does not realize it, but his achievement is no less than Galileo’s. The deeper point is that NO AUTHORITY can ever be regarded as infallible. To err is human.
Knowledge must be free.
Saturday, August 1, 2009
Friday, July 31, 2009
The 3Ts Of Prosperity... All Destroyed!
It is indeed disheartening to hear of the plight of our new private airline companies. They have decided to observe a one-day token strike on August 18. And they want some sort of “bailout” from our The State – and somewhere here I kinda tuned off. This is a disaster.
Note that Air India has just asked for a 20,000 crore rupee bailout.
Transportation is the key. This is another disaster in transportation.
Our The State monopolizes roads and railways – and a flourishing private sector in civil aviation was bound to alter the rules of the game. It is my firm belief that our The State deliberately played spoilsport in order to keep its railways in business. This is precisely the kind of ideas that guide the actions of a “predatory state.” The taxes and other fees added to the airfare are extortionist. They invariably add up to more than the airfare itself! It is as if they do not want more and more Indians – who have never flown – to fly. The “evil eye.”
India desperately needs a Revolution in Transportation. We now have cars; we need highways. On the coast, we need modern boats. In the mountains we need modern cable cars. And we need airways too.
If excellent highways are built, and if good policies guide the growth of private airlines, the railways will be outcompeted: for distances up to 1000 km people will take a modern bus on a modern highway; beyond that, they’ll fly. Only then will our State-owned railways be forced to get its act together. Transport is always “multi-modal” – and all the modes compete.
But that is the India I daydream about.
The harsh reality is that we are moving in precisely the opposite direction – towards a Total Transportation Disaster.
In the capital city, New Delhi, the authorities have assumed that the Metro rail is a substitute for roads; a substitute for cars. They do not think “multi-modal.” They have never heard the saying “every great city sits like a giant spider on its transportation network.” That “all roads led to Rome.” They do not see that the road layout of Connaught Place and the Lutyens’ Bungalow Zone, where they live, is a “hubs-and-spokes” design. The rest of the city, which they laid out, is on the pattern of T-junctions.
Methinks our Central Planners know zilch about Transportation precisely because the “theory” in their heads has nothing to do with either Trade or Towns. Their theory is about self-sufficient village economies. This theory is wrong.
In reality, Trade, Towns and Transportation are the 3Ts of Prosperity.
And these guys have screwed up all three.
Note that Air India has just asked for a 20,000 crore rupee bailout.
Transportation is the key. This is another disaster in transportation.
Our The State monopolizes roads and railways – and a flourishing private sector in civil aviation was bound to alter the rules of the game. It is my firm belief that our The State deliberately played spoilsport in order to keep its railways in business. This is precisely the kind of ideas that guide the actions of a “predatory state.” The taxes and other fees added to the airfare are extortionist. They invariably add up to more than the airfare itself! It is as if they do not want more and more Indians – who have never flown – to fly. The “evil eye.”
India desperately needs a Revolution in Transportation. We now have cars; we need highways. On the coast, we need modern boats. In the mountains we need modern cable cars. And we need airways too.
If excellent highways are built, and if good policies guide the growth of private airlines, the railways will be outcompeted: for distances up to 1000 km people will take a modern bus on a modern highway; beyond that, they’ll fly. Only then will our State-owned railways be forced to get its act together. Transport is always “multi-modal” – and all the modes compete.
But that is the India I daydream about.
The harsh reality is that we are moving in precisely the opposite direction – towards a Total Transportation Disaster.
In the capital city, New Delhi, the authorities have assumed that the Metro rail is a substitute for roads; a substitute for cars. They do not think “multi-modal.” They have never heard the saying “every great city sits like a giant spider on its transportation network.” That “all roads led to Rome.” They do not see that the road layout of Connaught Place and the Lutyens’ Bungalow Zone, where they live, is a “hubs-and-spokes” design. The rest of the city, which they laid out, is on the pattern of T-junctions.
Methinks our Central Planners know zilch about Transportation precisely because the “theory” in their heads has nothing to do with either Trade or Towns. Their theory is about self-sufficient village economies. This theory is wrong.
In reality, Trade, Towns and Transportation are the 3Ts of Prosperity.
And these guys have screwed up all three.
Thursday, July 30, 2009
With God On Our Side
There has been a great big hullabaloo in their parliament over Baloochistan. The BJP and the Samajwadi Party staged a walkout.
A bit too much, isn’t it? – the walkout.
And that too over Baloochistan.
It costs money to keep the Lowk Sabha running. Why waste our tax money and disrupt parliamentary proceedings?
Anyway, while their parliament session ended in noise and confusion, our para-parliament is discussing a very lofty idea: God.
An editorial in Mint, written in the light of a new book by the Dalai Lama, The Leader’s Way, examines the relationship between capitalism and religion. It seems that in this new book, the Dalai Lama has strongly supported globalization and free markets. Unlike Nehru, to whom profit was a “dirty word,” the Dalai Lama has said that the pursuit of economic gain is a “fine aim.”
The editorial then goes on to discuss the relationship between Christianity and Capitalism, from Max Weber’s identification of the “protestant work ethic” – and the free European city – as critical for the growth of western capitalism, right down to Pope Benedict’s recent publication endorsing free markets.
I welcome this book from the Dalai Lama. I have always been an admirer of the Tibetans as traders – whether in woolen sweaters or in momos. I have also always advocated Liberty for chhung, their rice beer. Go to any Tibetan settlement – and I have seen both Dharamsala as well as Kushalnagar – and you will be fascinated by the vibrant market economy there, and the unique skills the Tibetans possess, which they seek to trade. A lot of what they produce is art. It is therefore a welcome development that a moral and spiritual leader of such a high stature has stood on the side of The Market.
Actually, all religions support free markets. Islam is but a morality of traders, not soldiers. The Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, was a trader, as was his wife Khadija. Mecca and Medina were both free-trading cities then. The Prophet famously said, “He who makes money pleases Allah.”
On Islam and free markets, I suggest you read the "mission statement" of the Minaret for Freedom Institute, an important Islamic think-tank, run by an Islamic scholar who knows his Austrian economics, Dr. Imad-ad Dean Ahmad. Read his fine paper "Islam and Hayek." pdf file here. Read another important paper by Ahmad titled "Islam and the Medieval Progenitors of Austrian Economics" here.
Hinduism, of course, said it all aeons ago, in just two little words: shubh laabh (profits are auspicious). For the west, this understanding that private gain coincides with social gain had to wait till 1776 and Adam Smith. Shubh laabh is a greater philosophical achievement than the discovery of the mathematical zero, of which we are so proud.
But we could take other important Indian religions: Take Sikhism. I have visited the Golden Temple at Amritsar. The outer courtyard of the temple is a market. There is even an ATM there. Sikhs are hard-working and entrepreneurial. Their religion encourages them to be so. It is a religion that looks down on dependence. And the community looks after those who need help – through the daily langar, where the poor are fed.
Or let us take the Parsees, who are invariably urban traders. Their surnames, like Daruwallah and Sodawallah, reflect the urban division of labour. Their ancient religion surely cannot have anything against trade, since they have always been traders, even before they sought refuge in India. And they too look after their own poor.
Further, very few Parsees and very few Sikhs are poor – because their religions encourage trade and enterprise.
And lastly, what about the Jains? Their religion, like Buddhism, is “non-theistic” – there is no God – and their way of life is based on non-violence. But see them in the practical world, and they are invariably businessmen. Usually fairly prosperous. Trade is Justice. Trade is non-violent. Trade is the Only Way for All. And I have visited Moodbidri, the “Kashi of the Jains,” and quite liked the place: peaceful, clean, orderly, and holy as well.
So take courage. If you are on the side of Liberty, you definitely have God on your side.
A bit too much, isn’t it? – the walkout.
And that too over Baloochistan.
It costs money to keep the Lowk Sabha running. Why waste our tax money and disrupt parliamentary proceedings?
Anyway, while their parliament session ended in noise and confusion, our para-parliament is discussing a very lofty idea: God.
An editorial in Mint, written in the light of a new book by the Dalai Lama, The Leader’s Way, examines the relationship between capitalism and religion. It seems that in this new book, the Dalai Lama has strongly supported globalization and free markets. Unlike Nehru, to whom profit was a “dirty word,” the Dalai Lama has said that the pursuit of economic gain is a “fine aim.”
The editorial then goes on to discuss the relationship between Christianity and Capitalism, from Max Weber’s identification of the “protestant work ethic” – and the free European city – as critical for the growth of western capitalism, right down to Pope Benedict’s recent publication endorsing free markets.
I welcome this book from the Dalai Lama. I have always been an admirer of the Tibetans as traders – whether in woolen sweaters or in momos. I have also always advocated Liberty for chhung, their rice beer. Go to any Tibetan settlement – and I have seen both Dharamsala as well as Kushalnagar – and you will be fascinated by the vibrant market economy there, and the unique skills the Tibetans possess, which they seek to trade. A lot of what they produce is art. It is therefore a welcome development that a moral and spiritual leader of such a high stature has stood on the side of The Market.
Actually, all religions support free markets. Islam is but a morality of traders, not soldiers. The Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, was a trader, as was his wife Khadija. Mecca and Medina were both free-trading cities then. The Prophet famously said, “He who makes money pleases Allah.”
On Islam and free markets, I suggest you read the "mission statement" of the Minaret for Freedom Institute, an important Islamic think-tank, run by an Islamic scholar who knows his Austrian economics, Dr. Imad-ad Dean Ahmad. Read his fine paper "Islam and Hayek." pdf file here. Read another important paper by Ahmad titled "Islam and the Medieval Progenitors of Austrian Economics" here.
Hinduism, of course, said it all aeons ago, in just two little words: shubh laabh (profits are auspicious). For the west, this understanding that private gain coincides with social gain had to wait till 1776 and Adam Smith. Shubh laabh is a greater philosophical achievement than the discovery of the mathematical zero, of which we are so proud.
But we could take other important Indian religions: Take Sikhism. I have visited the Golden Temple at Amritsar. The outer courtyard of the temple is a market. There is even an ATM there. Sikhs are hard-working and entrepreneurial. Their religion encourages them to be so. It is a religion that looks down on dependence. And the community looks after those who need help – through the daily langar, where the poor are fed.
Or let us take the Parsees, who are invariably urban traders. Their surnames, like Daruwallah and Sodawallah, reflect the urban division of labour. Their ancient religion surely cannot have anything against trade, since they have always been traders, even before they sought refuge in India. And they too look after their own poor.
Further, very few Parsees and very few Sikhs are poor – because their religions encourage trade and enterprise.
And lastly, what about the Jains? Their religion, like Buddhism, is “non-theistic” – there is no God – and their way of life is based on non-violence. But see them in the practical world, and they are invariably businessmen. Usually fairly prosperous. Trade is Justice. Trade is non-violent. Trade is the Only Way for All. And I have visited Moodbidri, the “Kashi of the Jains,” and quite liked the place: peaceful, clean, orderly, and holy as well.
So take courage. If you are on the side of Liberty, you definitely have God on your side.
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
The Debate On Amartya Sen Continues
The debate continues in our para-parliament, with Mint today editorializing on the “relevance of Amartya Sen.” This is in the context of his latest book The Idea of Justice (see earlier post). The editors conclude that Sen’s ideas are “full of imprecision and relativity.”
Hayek is indispensable to this debate. And Chandra has provided the most appropriate quote:
Is it “just” that Sachin Tendulkar earns so much? Or Shah Rukh Khan? Is it “unjust” that housemaids are poor? As are teachers, professors, and journalists.
The welfare statists, led by Amartya Sen, want “distributive justice.” To them The Market is unjust. They call upon The State to correct these perceived injustices.
My point is this: Amartya Sen’s “vision” is an exact replica of Jawaharlal Nehru’s “socialistic pattern of society.” The idea is an economic egalitarianism achieved by State force. This is the very same vision that India has chased for over 60 years – and which lies in tatters.
The Hayekian vision is of a Great & Open Society: a society of numberless individuals interacting freely in markets, exchanging goods and services peacefully among themselves. This is a “catallaxy,” not a “community.” The individuals who engage in market exchanges usually do not even know one another – and it doesn’t matter.
There cannot be economic equality in such a Great Society. As in a free forest, where there are tall trees, short grasses, bushes and shrubs, and vines, so too with the Great Society. Just as each living creature finds a “niche” in the jungle, so too with The Market – we all find “niches.” This is the “social division of labour.” Rewards are uncertain for all. The socialists and welfare statists want to replace a freely growing forest with a landscape of uniformly trimmed hedges - with their Supreme Leader doing the trimming.
Further, the Great Society is one in which there is Competition. There are rewards for those who serve their customers best; and there are punishments for those who do it the worst. Without this “minimum pressure” the catallaxy cannot work. After all, the entire idea is that the Consumer is King. The welfare statists want to eliminate this minimum pressure. Their ideas only create a culture of dependency. They do not encourage enterprise. Amartya Sen has never supported Economic Freedom. Or Free Trade.
Recommended reading: My review of Amartya Sen’s earlier work Rationality and Freedom that was published in the New York Sun in 2003. To read, click here.
Hayek is indispensable to this debate. And Chandra has provided the most appropriate quote:
Justice has meaning only as a rule of human conduct, and no conceivable rules for the conduct of individuals supplying each other with goods and services in a market economy would produce a distribution which could be meaningfully described as just or unjust. Individuals might conduct themselves as justly as possible, but as the results for separate individuals would be neither intended nor foreseeable by others, the resulting state of affairs could neither be called just nor unjust.
Is it “just” that Sachin Tendulkar earns so much? Or Shah Rukh Khan? Is it “unjust” that housemaids are poor? As are teachers, professors, and journalists.
The welfare statists, led by Amartya Sen, want “distributive justice.” To them The Market is unjust. They call upon The State to correct these perceived injustices.
My point is this: Amartya Sen’s “vision” is an exact replica of Jawaharlal Nehru’s “socialistic pattern of society.” The idea is an economic egalitarianism achieved by State force. This is the very same vision that India has chased for over 60 years – and which lies in tatters.
The Hayekian vision is of a Great & Open Society: a society of numberless individuals interacting freely in markets, exchanging goods and services peacefully among themselves. This is a “catallaxy,” not a “community.” The individuals who engage in market exchanges usually do not even know one another – and it doesn’t matter.
There cannot be economic equality in such a Great Society. As in a free forest, where there are tall trees, short grasses, bushes and shrubs, and vines, so too with the Great Society. Just as each living creature finds a “niche” in the jungle, so too with The Market – we all find “niches.” This is the “social division of labour.” Rewards are uncertain for all. The socialists and welfare statists want to replace a freely growing forest with a landscape of uniformly trimmed hedges - with their Supreme Leader doing the trimming.
Further, the Great Society is one in which there is Competition. There are rewards for those who serve their customers best; and there are punishments for those who do it the worst. Without this “minimum pressure” the catallaxy cannot work. After all, the entire idea is that the Consumer is King. The welfare statists want to eliminate this minimum pressure. Their ideas only create a culture of dependency. They do not encourage enterprise. Amartya Sen has never supported Economic Freedom. Or Free Trade.
Recommended reading: My review of Amartya Sen’s earlier work Rationality and Freedom that was published in the New York Sun in 2003. To read, click here.
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Our Parliament... And Theirs
It was good to read that Aristotle the Geek “agrees with everything” I have just written against Amartya Sen’s idea of Justice; and also what I have written on Eminent Domain.
That puts the two of us against three major league editors.
Note that this debate is occurring in a “para-parliament.” This is where actual people are speaking – not their representatives. This is where the real action happens. What people think on issues is the focal matter of “politics”; and real “political influence” is nothing more than the ability to influence public opinion on these issues.
It is here that the ideas of Liberty, Property and Justice – as expounded by the great classical liberals of yesteryears, which form the bedrock of modern libertarianism – are gaining ground.
And these twin debates – one on Amartya Sen’s idea of Justice and the other on land acquisition – are a welcome opportunity to spread these ideas.
The reason why these eminent editors have got it wrong is that they are not consistently “liberal” – in the classical sense. They hold views that do not consistently uphold the inviolability of property because they have not thought things through for themselves, in their own minds. I recommend to them Frederic Bastiat’s The Law.
Private property is what the entire ball game is about. We make India a great piece of real estate.
Which is why we stress land records, not ID cards.
[Jug Suraiya warns that compulsory ID cards will lead to police excesses.]
While all this action is happening in our para-parliament, Chacha Manmohan is going to bare all about Pakistan and terrorism in the Lok Sabha – of which I don’t think he is a member.
Recently, the Lok Sabha passed 8 bills in 17 minutes without debate. Parliament met for just 32 days last year. And almost every day the proceedings ended in an uproar.
Read the news here.
Cha Cha is going to talk to this parliament. A political leader must talk to the people.
Anyway, I am fed up about Pakistan and terrorism. I demand Liberty Under Law for all immediately. What matters is how you survive – which is The Free Market. Yeah, there may be some terrorists, Maoists or other violent creeps out there, but we trust in luck, in god, and in our own .45 Magnums to tackle such creeps. If Mumbaikars had been armed, they would have themselves eliminated the entire Kasab gang in a few hours. The State took a few days. And remember, a gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone.
So let us forget about Cha Cha and the Lowk Sabha and Pakistan.
Let us think of Liberty.
Spread the news in your own para-parliament.
That puts the two of us against three major league editors.
Note that this debate is occurring in a “para-parliament.” This is where actual people are speaking – not their representatives. This is where the real action happens. What people think on issues is the focal matter of “politics”; and real “political influence” is nothing more than the ability to influence public opinion on these issues.
It is here that the ideas of Liberty, Property and Justice – as expounded by the great classical liberals of yesteryears, which form the bedrock of modern libertarianism – are gaining ground.
And these twin debates – one on Amartya Sen’s idea of Justice and the other on land acquisition – are a welcome opportunity to spread these ideas.
The reason why these eminent editors have got it wrong is that they are not consistently “liberal” – in the classical sense. They hold views that do not consistently uphold the inviolability of property because they have not thought things through for themselves, in their own minds. I recommend to them Frederic Bastiat’s The Law.
Private property is what the entire ball game is about. We make India a great piece of real estate.
Which is why we stress land records, not ID cards.
[Jug Suraiya warns that compulsory ID cards will lead to police excesses.]
While all this action is happening in our para-parliament, Chacha Manmohan is going to bare all about Pakistan and terrorism in the Lok Sabha – of which I don’t think he is a member.
Recently, the Lok Sabha passed 8 bills in 17 minutes without debate. Parliament met for just 32 days last year. And almost every day the proceedings ended in an uproar.
Read the news here.
Cha Cha is going to talk to this parliament. A political leader must talk to the people.
Anyway, I am fed up about Pakistan and terrorism. I demand Liberty Under Law for all immediately. What matters is how you survive – which is The Free Market. Yeah, there may be some terrorists, Maoists or other violent creeps out there, but we trust in luck, in god, and in our own .45 Magnums to tackle such creeps. If Mumbaikars had been armed, they would have themselves eliminated the entire Kasab gang in a few hours. The State took a few days. And remember, a gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone.
So let us forget about Cha Cha and the Lowk Sabha and Pakistan.
Let us think of Liberty.
Spread the news in your own para-parliament.
Monday, July 27, 2009
On Eminent Domain
Legislation on the powers of our The State to “acquire” land that belongs to the citizen for “public purposes” – which, perversely, includes private industrial projects – is The Topic of the day, with two editorials arguing that Mamata Banerjee and the Trinamool are wrong.
Here is the Indian Express.
Here is Mint.
At the outset, I must mention that I have direct experience of The State wanting to acquire the property in which I was living. This was a few years ago, in Goa. A north-south expressway had been proposed. And maps were circulated on its alignment, which showed that our property was sure to go.
It was a horrible feeling. I would not wish it on anyone.
To the editors who have supported “property takings” by State force, my plea is that they must sometimes spare a thought for those dispossessed. Yes, progress and industrialization is a great cause – but none should be made to suffer forcible seizure of property for this cause.
In my book, if the private businessman can acquire only 70 per cent of the land he had planned to acquire, then he must adjust accordingly – and build a smaller factory. There is simply no case that The State should be called in. There is absolutely no “public purpose” here. It is entirely about private enterprise and private purpose.
What is my take on “eminent domain”? This question has come up in readers’ comments recently.
I read a story as a child of a farmer in the American mid-west who had the good fortune to own land smack-bang-middle of a proposed highway. He threw a party when he heard the news. The price paid for his land was much more than market price – the value of his neighbouring farms – and from the proceeds he bought a cottage in the Canary Islands and settled down to a comfortable retirement.
If The State offered such “inducements” to those whose properties it seeks to acquire, even we would have celebrated in Goa when we heard the news that our property lay on the path of an expressway. Maybe we too would have moved to the Canary Islands – which lie very close to Morocco :). Or maybe we would have moved to Jamaica :) :) :).
So that’s my take on eminent domain. Whether it is The State that acquires property or any private party does so, in no case can pure force be used. The only just method is inducement.
The “project-affected persons” should party all night on hearing of their good fortune. Their properties should go for a much higher price than that of their neighbours, whose properties are not affected.
Only this approach can be called Just.
Road-building constitutes a great “public purpose”: we all benefit. Even foreign tourists benefit. No one should suffer for this cause. Compensation should not only be more than adequate, it should be hugely generous.
Even here, I do believe if there are some “holdouts” for reasons of sentiment or faith – as in the case of a shrine or a graveyard – force should not be used, and the road should be re-aligned.
No Misuse of Force: that is the ideal.
Here is the Indian Express.
Here is Mint.
At the outset, I must mention that I have direct experience of The State wanting to acquire the property in which I was living. This was a few years ago, in Goa. A north-south expressway had been proposed. And maps were circulated on its alignment, which showed that our property was sure to go.
It was a horrible feeling. I would not wish it on anyone.
To the editors who have supported “property takings” by State force, my plea is that they must sometimes spare a thought for those dispossessed. Yes, progress and industrialization is a great cause – but none should be made to suffer forcible seizure of property for this cause.
In my book, if the private businessman can acquire only 70 per cent of the land he had planned to acquire, then he must adjust accordingly – and build a smaller factory. There is simply no case that The State should be called in. There is absolutely no “public purpose” here. It is entirely about private enterprise and private purpose.
What is my take on “eminent domain”? This question has come up in readers’ comments recently.
I read a story as a child of a farmer in the American mid-west who had the good fortune to own land smack-bang-middle of a proposed highway. He threw a party when he heard the news. The price paid for his land was much more than market price – the value of his neighbouring farms – and from the proceeds he bought a cottage in the Canary Islands and settled down to a comfortable retirement.
If The State offered such “inducements” to those whose properties it seeks to acquire, even we would have celebrated in Goa when we heard the news that our property lay on the path of an expressway. Maybe we too would have moved to the Canary Islands – which lie very close to Morocco :). Or maybe we would have moved to Jamaica :) :) :).
So that’s my take on eminent domain. Whether it is The State that acquires property or any private party does so, in no case can pure force be used. The only just method is inducement.
The “project-affected persons” should party all night on hearing of their good fortune. Their properties should go for a much higher price than that of their neighbours, whose properties are not affected.
Only this approach can be called Just.
Road-building constitutes a great “public purpose”: we all benefit. Even foreign tourists benefit. No one should suffer for this cause. Compensation should not only be more than adequate, it should be hugely generous.
Even here, I do believe if there are some “holdouts” for reasons of sentiment or faith – as in the case of a shrine or a graveyard – force should not be used, and the road should be re-aligned.
No Misuse of Force: that is the ideal.
Sunday, July 26, 2009
A Happy Monday For Liberalism
As West Bengal moves away from Communist thinking, and the Communist Party there is in terminal decline after an uninterrupted reign of over 30 years, it is the Trinamool Congress, a breakaway faction of the Grand Old Party, that is filling up the vacuum. The Trinamool is an important ally of the present government.
However, the Trinamool has recently been seen to be too “socialist” [from now on we shall call such ideas “étatist”]. Mamata Banerjee, their chief, now railway minister, has naturally opposed privatization of State “enterprise” – another fatal misnomer. Many commentators who were happy that The Left were out of the government noted that nothing much had changed with the new dispensation because the Trinamool (and the DMK) seemed more étatist than The Left – who are in terminal decline, thank God.
However, this time around, there is a conflict between the Trinamool and the government that promises to yield fruitful results for those who believe in the inviolability of Private Property: the conflict is over amendments to the “land acquisition legislation.” The new bill allows The State to help private businessmen buy land for their projects, but with a proviso: the private party must buy 70 per cent of the land on his own; The State will assist in the delivery of the properties of the balance 30 per cent, the “holdouts.”
Trinamool is saying nothing doing: the private party must buy all the land he needs on his own, without any support from The State – support, that is, based on the Misuse of Force.
In its lead editorial today, the ToI has labeled the Trinamool stand “populist.” They say the Trinamool is being too “idealistic.” The editors have called upon the party leadership to shun populism and be “realistic.”
In my view, the editors of the ToI are failing to stand up to their professed “liberal” philosophy. This political philosophy, the very antithesis of communism, is based solidly on the bedrock of Private Property. It is therefore a peculiar debate we are witnessing: a party of étatists standing firm by Property; and a “liberal” newspaper arguing the opposite.
Deep down, I do believe that the editors of the ToI are misreading the real “politics” that is occurring in rural India, especially West Bengal, where, after the fiasco over Singur and Nandigram, the average peasant has become firmly convinced of his rights to the ownership of his own land; and further, that The State has no business depriving him of this natural right. Trinamool’s Banerjee is not being “populist” – which is Chacha Manmohan with his NREGA and cheap rice programmes; rather, she is doing what all good politicians must: she is faithfully mirroring the opinion of her constituents.
I am happy at this outcome. It is good for Indian politics. It is good for Bengal. It is good that our long dispossessed masses are waking up to their rights to Property – something the “socialist” Constitution of India does not guarantee.
It means that Liberalism is winning.
However, the Trinamool has recently been seen to be too “socialist” [from now on we shall call such ideas “étatist”]. Mamata Banerjee, their chief, now railway minister, has naturally opposed privatization of State “enterprise” – another fatal misnomer. Many commentators who were happy that The Left were out of the government noted that nothing much had changed with the new dispensation because the Trinamool (and the DMK) seemed more étatist than The Left – who are in terminal decline, thank God.
However, this time around, there is a conflict between the Trinamool and the government that promises to yield fruitful results for those who believe in the inviolability of Private Property: the conflict is over amendments to the “land acquisition legislation.” The new bill allows The State to help private businessmen buy land for their projects, but with a proviso: the private party must buy 70 per cent of the land on his own; The State will assist in the delivery of the properties of the balance 30 per cent, the “holdouts.”
Trinamool is saying nothing doing: the private party must buy all the land he needs on his own, without any support from The State – support, that is, based on the Misuse of Force.
In its lead editorial today, the ToI has labeled the Trinamool stand “populist.” They say the Trinamool is being too “idealistic.” The editors have called upon the party leadership to shun populism and be “realistic.”
In my view, the editors of the ToI are failing to stand up to their professed “liberal” philosophy. This political philosophy, the very antithesis of communism, is based solidly on the bedrock of Private Property. It is therefore a peculiar debate we are witnessing: a party of étatists standing firm by Property; and a “liberal” newspaper arguing the opposite.
Deep down, I do believe that the editors of the ToI are misreading the real “politics” that is occurring in rural India, especially West Bengal, where, after the fiasco over Singur and Nandigram, the average peasant has become firmly convinced of his rights to the ownership of his own land; and further, that The State has no business depriving him of this natural right. Trinamool’s Banerjee is not being “populist” – which is Chacha Manmohan with his NREGA and cheap rice programmes; rather, she is doing what all good politicians must: she is faithfully mirroring the opinion of her constituents.
I am happy at this outcome. It is good for Indian politics. It is good for Bengal. It is good that our long dispossessed masses are waking up to their rights to Property – something the “socialist” Constitution of India does not guarantee.
It means that Liberalism is winning.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)