In Defence Of Migrants

Our Central State Police Minister's comment that crime was on the rise in Nude Elly "because of migrants," reminded me of an "experiment with truth" I once conducted, some ten years ago, while an editorial writer with The Economic Times in this very city.

For two hours every morning, some eight of us would meet to discuss the events of the previous day and then decide on our three editorials. One morning, I asked the group if any of them had been born in Delhi. Not surprisingly, all of them answered "No." They were all migrants. So was I. Just then, there was a knock on the door and a bearer entered with our tea. I asked him his place of origin, and he replied, "Nepal."

There are precious few "Original Dilliwallahs" in Delhi.

Indeed, I daresay that if the minister checks the personnel records, the police commissioner of Delhi will turn out to be a migrant - same as the chief minister. Anyway, the entire police constabulary is composed of migrants - mainly village lads from Haryana.

The Central State Police Minister's irresponsible comment has found a sympathetic echo in Mumbai - with the Shiv Sena mouthpiece, Saamna, asking the central minister to implement a "permit system" for migrants into Delhi and Mumbai. "Internal visa"? What an idea, sirjee!

History reveals that successful cities are those that have been open to migrants. This is particularly true of the Olde City of London. Lombard Street, where banking began, is named after the area in Italy these bankers came from. There were merchants from Flanders, from France, from Holland - and, of course, all the Hansa cities. Almost every Lord Mayor in its 800-year history has been an "outsider" - usually a younger son who would not inherit his father's estate and had to make his own way in the world by moving to the Great City and taking up an apprenticeship. Indeed, the very word "mayor" was an import: it originated in Rouen, France, the first place where an association of citizens addressed their leader by that title. Long before the Norman Conquest, a community of merchants from Rouen inhabited one corner of Olde London. It is said that this word came to London from them.

This openness to migrants is also true of Cochin, a very old port city, much older than Bombay. There is a very old synagogue in Cochin; there are old churches of Syrian Christians; and old mosques too. All these served communities who had migrated from over the seas. These arrived here long before the white man.

Cities have always attracted migrants: this is the story of civilisation. In highly developed nations, very few people live in the countryside. The vast majority are city-dwellers.

In India, the biggest problem is that there are very few cities. And these are getting horribly overcrowded. The only solution is aggressive urbanisation - the building of hundreds more "satellite towns" around the five "metro" cities; the building of entirely new cities along the coasts; and re-building all the smaller cities and towns in the interior. Many more "hill stations" too.

The US has 350 million people and 200 cities. India has 1000 million people and 5 cities.

India needs aggressive urbanisation - not this "rural development" bull. The very fact that villagers are migrating en masse to the cities - "voting with their feet" - proves our poor people want urban opportunities. The Gandhian vision of "self-sufficient village republics" run by village panchayats must be dumped. Globalised Indyeah of the future must aim to be urban - thousands of free trading and self-governing cities and towns run by mayors.

The Shiv Sena attitude can only then be effectively countered - by Competition, as cities compete for citizens as well as commerce. Then, the migrant will be recognised as a valuable resource.

Further, only when urban competition kicks in will our cities and towns be well run. This valuable insight, that competition between local governments for citizens who "vote with their feet" matters more than ballots in local elections, is credited to Charles Tiebout.

Superpowers - And The Common Man

I was directed to Ashok V Desai's column because it contains the expression "unilateral free trade" and I received a Google Alert. Desai not only calls for unilateral free trade, he specifically mentions this in the context of the great Indian Ocean:

The Indian Ocean area is India’s backwater; it must work on developing this area, and tying it to India with economic interrelationships.

I am in full agreement. Just about a month ago I had written a post titled "India's Urban Future - On The Coasts," in which I had also called for unilateral free trade.

Maritime trade is what created civilisation. On our western coast, where I have been living for long, all the foreign trade that is happening these days is the exportation of iron ore and the importation of nothing. You don't see many ships when you pass by any of the ports. Yet, if you read about London in the 10th century, you find the Thames described as "a forest of ship-masts."

And, just the other day, I saw an ad saying the State-owned Shipping Corporation of India is buying lots of new ships!

These will offer "unfair competition" to all private ship-owners.

Let us leave the insanity of our socialist rulers aside and get back to Ashok Desai's column - this time, to points of disagreement. His very title contains the word "superpower" - and the thrust of the column is directed towards outlining how India can become a superpower.

Is that a desirable goal? - at least for us, ordinary people.

Desai writes about the three superpowers of today - the US, the EU, and China. But are they all doing well? That is, are they all doing well for the ordinary people?

Libertarians in the US are fed up with Uncle Sam's superpower ambitions. They do not approve of their "Warfare State" - and the "foreign policy" that drives it. They are calling for a non-interventionist foreign policy - for peaceful trade among nations.

The EU is not doing too well either.

Both the US and the EU are nose-diving because of the unworkability of their fiat paper currencies. In both these "superpowers" ordinary people are suffering.

In India, ordinary people are completely screwed. The purchasing power of the rupee is in constant decline - inflation. Every city and town is close to collapse - and urban living throughout India is a nightmare. Electricity, water, roads - both rural as well as urban India cry out for these - and all three are State monopolies, just like the currency. In India, all solutions require an immediate abandonment of the idea of statism.

Why do I champion unilateral free trade? Because this will improve the life of the common man. Further, it will take politics out of international trade. Thus, politicians and diplomats in Delhi would have no say in the Great Indian Duty-Free Market. Rather, it is the Consumer - the common man - whose decisions will rule the roost.

It is for this very same reason that I champion 'sound money" - it will be great for the common man. As I wrote some days ago, quoting Mises, sound money operates as a check on government despotism.

China is having a lot of trouble with its currency - and with the "monetary policy" that guides it - as this column of today makes very clear. China covers an extremely vast and ethnically diverse territory - much of it in the doldrums. The future of centralised China is uncertain.

Deepak Lal, the "classical liberal" development economist, has written a recent book titled In Praise of Empires. But I do not share this vision of the future. My ideal is the "free trading and self-governing city." Empires require powerful central States. I don't believe in them. Such central states are good for the emperor, his court and his courtiers, and his tax collectors. Free cities are good for the ordinary people who live in them.

So that's my credo: Free trade across land and sea, sound money, mayors.

No superpowers. No empires.

There Is No "Model" Of Liberty

The headline read: "Privatisation is not a solution for development" - and I clicked. Here is what I found.

The finance minister of Kerala, Thomas Issac, while speaking at a three-day annual international conference of the Network of Asia-Pacific Schools and Institutes of Public Administration and Governance (NAPSIPAG) at the Institute of Management in Government in Thiruvananthapuram, said that "privatisation is not a solution for development in Kerala."

What is the solution then, Mr. Minister? - nationalisation? PSUs?

The minister was arguing in favour of the "Kerala Model of Development."

According to the minister, "Development has to be designed in such a manner that emphasis is laid on decentralised participatory governance."

Frankly, this mantra of "decentralised participatory governance" is NOT what they practise. Kerala - like all our other states - has a State Planning Board, and two of its Members participated in these discussions. There is a Central Planning Commission in Delhi. Ours is a centralised State. The political parties are centralised. So is the bureaucracy.

Since only politicians and bureaucrats engage in State Planning, this is always "authoritarian."

It is The Market, on the other hand, that is completely "de-centralised," for its ultimate driving force is The Individual, in his capacity as a Consumer. Whereas he is alone, the fact remains that all the "higher" actors - the entrepreneurs, the technologists, the capitalists - they are trying to succeed by anticipating as well as satisfying the future needs of consumers as a "class." Consumers are "served" in markets - not "ruled."

The extremely worthy goal of "development" - which is an "economic goal" - can ONLY be accomplished by The Market.

"Economic development" in The Market is is an Individual Economic Achievement. It is based on Individual Knowledge.

These Individual Economic Achievements fund Taxation - which funds "State welfare" - which is something else. Welfare is NOT an "economic achievement."

The minister says, "the State would have to shift its development path with stress on knowledge-based and skill-based industries."

Earlier, I have quoted him saying, "Development has to be designed in such a manner that emphasis is laid on decentralised participatory governance."

As the italicised portions above show, this very "idea" is Centralised. Some Centralised Mind has to "design" development and "shift this path."

But all entrepreneurship and speculation is about The Future!

The Market works to satisfy almost all our myriad needs, because there are billions of individuals trying to satisfy future needs of "the masses" - all the unknown strangers out there.

In this market-based exchange order, "knowledge is fragmented."

That is why it works.

For the Future.

And "Five-Year Plans" are also about a future - the future thought of by a Centralised Mind.

Kerala "exports" its literate youth. There are no opportunities for them to make "economic achievements" in their own state. A good country attracts immigrants. People flee from bad countries. People have been fleeing communist Bengal for decades now. Millions tried to flee communist East Germany - and were shot!

The Kerala Model of Development doesn't work. It doesn't work because it is a State-based model. This "knowledge" - this "idea" - is false. It is the idea of the State as a "mastermind."

"What cannot be known cannot be planned," said Hayek, about this "idea."

Liberty is not a "model."

Liberty frees the Individual Mind - to plan the future of its proprietor. With its own "fragment of knowledge" - and many uncertain guesses about the unknown and unknowable future. Free to "speculate."

The process of knowledge acquisition is itself largely "speculative" - as students attempt to guess which course of study will give them the best jobs and careers. Often, they don't succeed - and switch to learning other skills. With rapid technological obsolescence, new skills will have to be learnt many times in one lifetime - and all in The Market. This is the "knowledge economy" that is fast emerging. No one can design a "model" of Liberty. The Market, after all, surprises us each day with new offerings. Liberty will be full of surprises too.

The Votometer Scam?

Are the Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) being used in our elections tamper-proof?

From a news report I saw today, it seems our The State is misusing force to stop the dissemination of scientific research that indicates EVMs are NOT tamper-proof.

A "Votometer Scam"?

Two computer scientists, J Alex Halderman and Hari Prasad, who have successfully conducted independent research to conclude that the "electronic voting meters" (EVMs) used in our elections can be intentionally tampered with, were coming into India to speak about their findings at a "technical meeting" of computer scientists in Gujarat.

Halderman was stopped at Delhi Airport - and "deported on arrival."

The news report says:

Speaking to The Indian Express from the airport, Halderman said: “I am about to be thrown out of this country and there is no reason anyone is giving me. There is just no explanation, they are not letting me enter.”

Ha! Even their Votometers are rigged!

Let's get these scientific facts on The Internet fast.

And let's raise a LOUD SHOUT for the Liberty of Halderman.

Blind Leading The Blind

Two pink paper editors have just expressed their views on the spectrum scam - Swaminathan Aiyar of The Economic Times and Niranjan Rajadhyaksha of Mint - and it is highly instructive to look into their arguments and see where these eminent gentlemen differ.

Swaminathan Aiyar has put his points forward in his Sunday column of today, titled "How to prevent licensing scams." He wants "new law." He writes:

...we need a law that prohibits the discretionary misuse of power apparent in so many allocations of land, mines, and licences of all sorts. We need a law that lays down that no government permit or licence shall be granted save on the basis of an auction...

Having said this, Aiyar then decides, in the very next sentence, that an important caveat is required:

One exception will have to be made. An auction raises costs, and can mean that the winner has to charge high rates to recover his auction bid. In cases where the aim is to keep public prices low, licences can be distributed free of charge by lottery to pre-qualified candidates that will also be corruption-free.

Frankly, I do not think one piece of legislation can be even worded so precisely as to cover both "solutions" that the editor offers.

Anyway, what about "bar licenses"? Even driving licenses are a racket here.

I would have loved to hear the sweet word "Liberty." Why do we need all these licenses anyway? Why can't we be FREE? No birth certificate, no death certificate, no marriage license, no trade license, no electoral card, no ration card, no passport, no visa.

FREE!

Let us turn to Niranjan Rajadhyaksha. The very title of his recent column asks the most relevant question of them all - "Who owns the spectrum?" And he addresses the Boss Lady, not Chacha Manmohan:

Sonia Gandhi may pretentiously worry about our shrinking moral universe, but a rational approach to the problem of corruption should start with one key question: Who owns these natural resources?

Rajadhyaksha finds that the "theory" behind State ownership - which is "socialism" - would have been alright if "decent people are in charge." He finds we Indians are suffering from an "agency problem" - and then, forgetting about the all-important question that used to be uppermost in his mind - he goes on to suggest "independent boards as in Alaska." The Supreme Court is "independent," what?

To answer the all-important question as to who owns what - the "law of the land" - we must begin by underlining the fact that socialist idolaters of "collective property" are completely blind to the reality that Individuals own Property, and that this is the very basis, indeed, the only basis, of civilisation itself.

Observe any crowded Indian bazaar and you will find multitudes of diverse strangers interacting peacefully, surviving through the mutual gains of mutual transactions, and note the stark reality that in almost every instance of these numberless mutual exchanges that are occurring, there is never any need to invoke The Law - that is, in the sense of "government authority." The participants of these numberless exchanges usually go through life without ever having to call for the police, a lawyer, or a judge.

This is a natural, beneficial "order" that is the very basis of civilisation.

This order exists because all the participants are following one basic rule: Property. So the goods arrayed in front of the roadside vendor rightfully belong to him and if we want to make a portion of that our own Property, we must strike an agreement for mutual exchange - which is an exchange of Properties.

Private Properties.

There was never any "primitive communism."

Your wigwam, and your squaw, were always your wigwam and your squaw - and you may add to them your dog and your all-important horse too. And your rifle. And your ammo. Your tomahawk. And don't forget your tobacco pouch and "peace pipe."

When the commandment "Thou shalt not steal" was delivered, Property already existed, for long.

The Lord's Prayer contains the all-important word "trespass" - and that word would not have come into being if Property did not exist, for a long time.

Socialists are blind to Private Property and idolise Collective Property - like, say Air India or ONGC.

And the spectrum.

And all the oil and gas and coal and other stuff under the ground.

And all the forests.

The rivers.

The lakes.

And don't forget Rashtrapati Bhavan and the bungalows of Lutyens' Delhi too.

On the reality that State ownership (that is, "collective ownership," which is "socialism" or "communism"; it is they who "nationalise" claiming it to be a "good thing.") Rajadhyaksha makes the brutal observation that this "theory of collective ownership" would have worked if "decent people are in charge."

Reality is even deeper than that. In reality, collective property is a myth - a lie. Whether it be Rashtrapati Bhavan, a Lutyens' bungalow, Air India, ONGC, Railways, Spectrum, Coal, forests etc - the reality is that these are all being privately exploited by "those who claim to represent the collective." This is why "illegal" iron ore mining is happening on "unowned land" - which is, by default, State land. The error on our part is theoretical-philosophical. We have been blinded by our "education" - and the mainstream media.

Note also, that while The State goes on forever, the individuals who come to "own" these collective properties because they "claim to represent the collective" all come-and-go. They are all ever-changing, given the politics of the day.

Thus, unlike in the case of Private Property, where the individual owner takes good care of what is his own, and leaves it further improved to his heirs who do the same, in the case of these collective properties, the temporary holders of political power who "own" all the collective properties we have, only possess a view to the short-term.

This is also stark reality. Our homes, which are Private, are always clean.

Our streets, which are Collective, are always dirty - like hell!

Thus, collective property is not only a myth, a "legal fiction," it goes against the very purpose of ensuring that properties are well looked after.

This is another realty we are all blind to.

We think the Tiger can be saved as "collective property."

We think that an increase in the foreign exchange reserves of the RBI makes us all rich.

Yet, as far as "Private Property" is concerned, we all follow this "rule" everyday! We are all "rule-following animals" - and civilisation is "learned behaviour." We are all blind to this rule. We have never ever felt the need to articulate it. Our socialist Constitution upholds collective property while it does not guarantee us our Private Property.

Blind leading the blind.

It is extremely important to note that Property arises from a Liberty - not a "right." This is the Liberty to claim something "unowned." It is with this principle of "homesteading" that America, Australia, Canada and New Zealand were populated. South America too. All our tea estates were homesteaded. The old coffee estates of Coorg and its surrounds, I am positive, were homesteaded.

At the other end, there are many interesting examples of socially useful collective properties - like the Lord Mayor of the Olde City of London buying Epping Forest for the "entertainment of the citizenry."

As far as forests and minerals are concerned, I think that collective ownership ought to go to the local inhabitants, and they should work out their own destiny thereafter. Higher levels of "representative" collective ownership should not be invoked.

The "law of the land" is all about Property - owned and unowned. Only then can "exchange" occur.

The first "civilians" of the East India Company who ran the first EIC-administered districts in Bengal provided owners of Property with a title, "in exchange for a tax." This tax was very moderately assessed - it was less than half of what Siraj ud Daula used to collect. These property records included details of tenants - and they were protected too. Disputes were promptly heard and immediately settled. The "natural order" was strengthened by authority - in this honourable case, the authority of a chartered private trading company. With clear titles, landed properties were easily exchanged - and the "mystery of capital" was solved. "Locke was their prophet," says Philip Mason - and it was Locke who said "where there is no Property there is no Justice" (1691). These civilians were called "collectors" - they collected a tax. There was no "welfare." There was Property and Justice. And they built "roads, bridges and canals." There was Liberty.

As far as the spectrum is concerned, I am not a technical man. I don't take too much interest in telecom matters. However, in Principle - if all the fuss is being made about a "first come first served" basis for spectrum allocation, then "homesteading" is the best solution. Whoever get his system going first occupies some spectrum first. Then, slowly, more come in, and then a time comes when there is no more free and abundant spectrum left any more.

It is only then that The Market will come into play - when something is scarce, and hence an "economic good." Then, and only then, there will emerge entrepreneurs who will want to buy spectrum from the original homesteaders. Exchanges will take place. New entrepreneurs will enter the fray. Technology will also step in - to use the spectrum more efficiently, to get more done with less, because spectrum is now an "economic good."

So that's it: Property arises from a Liberty - not a "right."

California Gold Rush!

On Constitutional "Limits" To The State

The other day, towards the end of a post on corruption, cops and courts, I wrote briefly about a New Constitution. Today, I will continue on that theme.

The basic problem we face in India today is that our The State is "unlimited." It does anything and everything. It does everything it should not do - and it does nothing that a government worth its salt must do. This is a constitutional problem. Or should we call it a "constitutional crisis"?

The basic premise behind constitutionalism is that the government thereby created is "limited" - and there is a wide sphere of Liberty for the citizenry. The Indian Constitution does not perform this essential role. We see this everywhere - from the State-owned booze shops in Nude Elly, an ugly monopoly-monopsony, to the "common loss" PSUs like Air India. This, while our Property is not secure. While Liberty does not exist. And while The State owns everything in a nation where the people own nothing.

This idea of constitutionally "limited" government is pooh-poohed by modern libertarians who insist that no constitution can effectively rein in a State. The personnel of the State will always continue to expand their powers and privileges at the expense of the Property and Liberty of the people - and so, modern libertarians, especially in America, are "anarcho-capitalists." Their slogan is "abolish The State and all its works."

What I will argue in defense of my proposal is that, as times change, so must constitutions. That is, if constitutional checks on governments conceived many centuries ago no longer work - as in America - the lesson for us to learn here in India is we must think of much stronger checks.

In the West, their greatest failure has been their inability to keep their states out of the business of money, banking and credit. Further, they have never imposed any limits on their governments' ability to levy taxes; and on their ability to borrow. Any government with unlimited resources cannot be limited. For us here in India, these "new limits" become crucial.

Ludwig von Mises clearly saw how "sound money" operated just like a constitutional check on governments. The quote below is from his Theory of Money and Credit, first published in German in 1912:

It is impossible to grasp the meaning of the idea of sound money if one does not realize that it was devised as an instrument for the protection of civil liberties against despotic inroads on the part of governments. Ideologically it belongs in the same class with political constitutions and bills of rights.

To Mises, sound money meant the "classical gold standard." Under this standard, gold coins are money - and paper banknotes are "money substitutes" that must be redeemable on demand. The supply of hard money cannot be tampered with by The State. This is a constitutional check on governments the modern world needs. And we in India will do well to learn from the mistakes of the West - from whom we have imbibed the political ideal of constitutionalism.

However, we must go even further. It is my firm belief that the ability of the State to levy taxes must be "limited" as well. Unlimited taxation is an assault on the Property of the citizenry. Taxation in modern times has become cruel - more "expropriation" than "taxation." Many of the weapons of taxation and employed less towards taxation than as a means of influencing actual market outcomes. This is especially true with regard to indirect taxation and customs duties, because of the existence of widely varying and constantly variable tax rates. This "arbitraryism" must also be constitutionally checked.

If we severely limit the ability of the State to levy taxes, we will achieve yet another means of limiting the State itself.

Remember: the lesser the taxation, the greater the amount of Capital left in the hands of The People! This is the ONLY way to achieve Rapid Economic Development - that is, if The Market is FREE, and each and every Individual is the Chief Central Planner of his own, Individual Economy.

There is no "national economy."

There are a billion or more Private Economies.

For all these Private Economies, which belong to each citizen, it makes perfect sense if taxation is as low as possible. A constitutional limit on the ability of the State to levy taxes, including a list of prohibited taxes, makes eminent sense.

But the modern State goes even further than money creation and taxation in its greed. It borrows continuously and endlessly. This borrowing constitutes a "permanent irredeemable debt" - and ought to be constitutionally forbidden. Even in national emergencies like war, public borrowing is harmful - for it conceals the economic costs of war from the citizenry. Such borrowing is, in fact, a sort of deception that is patently anti-democratic, for the government of the day can bypass the only "democratic" restraint the taxpayers possess - namely, that the government they have established with their resources stays "limited" to those resources. The so-called "representatives of the taxpayers" are in fact burdening future taxpayers, while deceiving present taxpayers. This "function" is not being performed.

As I wrote in my post of a few days ago, our Parliament has not really met for over 21 days now, but in the meantime they did manage to pass a bill for supplementary grants to the general Union Budget, sanctioning addition expenditure to the tune of over Rs. 40,000 crores, "without discussion."

We will require yet another constitutional "limit" on the aggression and greed of The State apart from the ones I have listed above - and that is, its ability to legislate away our Freedom, and our rights to do what we like with our own Property. Thus, a good constitution ought to contain a provision that makes Property inviolable by The State. This is the Key to Liberty.

In what I have outlined above, the essential concerns remain the same as they were to the founders of the American Republic in 1776 - Liberty and Property.

However, the "limits" I have proposed are much, much stronger. Even if such a constitution is enacted, I have no doubt in my mind that governments in the future will attempt to wriggle out of its confines and expand their size and scope - and that constitutional courts, which are always a part of The State anyway, will take their side with specious arguments. But these are concerns of the future - and they belong rightly to future generations. Each generation has to fight for its own freedom.

And as for the "pursuit of happiness," this is a purely "subjective" matter whose solution has to be left to each individual mind, which will direct its proprietor's "human action." That action can only be feasible, and then executable, if Liberty prevails for all.

We Don't Need Jairam Ramesh

As a libertarian, I have been a long-time critic of the Ministry of Environment & Forests. Our forests, of course, are disappearing under their control; and as for the people who live in these forests, the denizens of this ministry are their sworn enemies - otherwise there would be no Maoists and Naxalites. As far as "environmental clearances" are concerned, I have always viewed them as a new form of the "license-permit raj" - and I fail to see what good they can do when all our cities and towns are dirty and full of disease.

My views have only been confirmed during my recent years in Goa - where the poor people on the coastline possess no rights to their ancestral Property because of environmental legislation from Nude Elly: the Coastal Zone Regulation Act. There is constant erosion on the shoreline - no one can stop it - and all that this nasty piece of legislation does is empower a corrupt bureaucracy. Whereas fisherfolk who "own" beachside property all along our 2500-mile coastline could have been rich beyond belief, this evil anti-property legislation keeps them poor - permanently. And Jairam Ramesh, our current central minister of environment and forests is on record lambasting real estate development on the Goa coastline. Meanwhile, they allow mining all along the coast. And Jairam Ramesh has personally approved of the Jaitapur nuclear power plant on the Konkan Coast just north of Goa - on which I have just commented.

I wonder what would have become of him in Florida or California. But then Ramesh is not really a "politician" - if you read what Wikipedia reveals about him you will discover that he is just another backroom boy of the CONgress party, a wheeler-dealer, and only a Rajya Sabha member of Parliament. He represents "interests" - not "people."

I was particularly horrified when Jairam Ramesh declared SUV owners "criminals" the other day. In my book, those who design and build our roads are the real criminals - and SUVs are a lifeline for all who can afford them. Would you like to go back to the bad old days when all you could buy for off-roading was a Mahindra jeep with three gears?

Jairam Ramesh is playing to the environmental gallery - and this is a great big global gallery. This is a New Religion that worships Nature and hates Man. In India, they are made up of city-dwellers. We are extremely fortunate that our rural masses and forest-dwellers don't buy this bull.

Jairam Ramesh is very much in the news these days because of the "climate change" nonsense going on in Cancun, Mexico. Quite frankly, I don't trust weather forecasts of even the day ahead - so what to speak of 100 years hence. Anyway, it has already been proved beyond doubt that the "science" supporting Al Gore and RK Pachauri is totally false. To me, these global "clubs" of governments are always anti-people, and must be distrusted - like the World Bank or the IMF. If their ideas are put into effect, our poor people will never be able to avail of modern energy. Throughout India, women can be seen carrying firewood. Throughout India, one of the biggest health hazards facing poor people is smoke inhaled from indoor wood-burning stoves. In Cancun, they are not solving the energy needs of poor people today. That, in any case, cannot be accomplished by a club of governments. This can only be accomplished by competing private energy suppliers in a free market. In Cancun, they are busy trying to solve "climate problems" of the very distant future - and these, in my view, are all "imaginary problems."

Fortunately, I am not alone in this opinion. I am joined by Barun Mitra of Liberty Institute, who has penned this powerful article against the global, governmental, environmental agenda - the people who are now meeting in Cancun. But he does better than that - for he equates them with the "save the tiger" freaks. Barun argues that the tiger can only be saved by The Market - and the right to Property. In the same vein, he argues that the real energy problems of poor people in poor nations can only be solved by The Market - and not by the politicians and bureaucrats meeting in Cancun. His conclusion is apt, and to the point:

It is the economics of development that should determine the climate of politics, rather than the other way round. It is only with economic development that environmental quality will improve as well.

This is so very true! The Soviet Union was the world's biggest environmental disaster. Rich countries boast great environmental quality - clean cities and towns, well looked after forests, clean lakes and rivers, great beaches (with fancy real estate on them). The air in London is cleaner than the air in Nude Elly. So, do read Barun's great piece.

We don't need the ministry of environment and forests in Nude Elly, and its minister, Jairam Ramesh, who is supported by a bunch of bureaucrats and all the crazies from Pachauri's TERI.

We need economic development - and that can only come from The Market.