Showing posts with label India. Show all posts
Showing posts with label India. Show all posts
Sunday, July 3, 2011
Thursday, June 30, 2011
topical thoughts on civil disobedience, the Lokpal agitation
I think the Lokpal is a great idea, it would be of high value in an otherwise normally functional republic, I would congratulate each and every Indian who got off his behind and hit the streets, but the specific society of India has a unique historic legacy of divine right endogamous hierarchy enforced by state coercion to which the major political party/ies and the society in general adheres, and for the maintenance of which no other viable alternative exists except dynastic cronyism
the fight here is not for regime change, the removal of a tyrant or party, the fight is for the moral soul, the conscience of the nation, because an end to state corruption would simultaneously mean the end of the millennia-old business model of the aryan endogamous hierarchy - sadly, history provides no cause whatsoever to hope or believe that such an outcome is possible without the use of coercive force, that Sonia Gandhi is going to turn into Mayawati, Manmohan Singh is going to turn into Nitish Kumar, the state is going to become free of corruption because of "civil disobedience" - the myth that the british left India because of "civil disobedience" is a profound insult to the memory of those brave soldiers who mutinied in defense of their generals, the memory of the patriot generals themselves, Shah Nawaz, Dhillon and Sehgal, and above all, to the memory of the widely popular Subhash Bose, who had earlier been coerced into resigning the Congress presidency by Gandhi's paroxysm of petulance, before organizing a military strategy to oust the brits
for the agitation in India to become a real movement it needs ideological clarity and a specific objective/s (like 'swaraj') as cleaner government is hard to define and quantify, rather it is a reflection of the rule of law, a measure of the competence of the executive branch - what is "rotten" in this Denmark is not a single, rogue king but rather the whole dynasty and the whole ideology, the casteism that is its' bread, the violence that is its' wine, the human vileness at its' very centre; a single, dramatic gesture (Hamletian or Gandhian, makes no difference) cannot substitute for the principled humanism of Ambedkar's classical liberal ideology
Arvind Kejriwal, Kiran Bedi, the Swami, the Anna, these are people of impeccable intentions, so the question is not whether the civil society can get another law passed, rather can the civil society effect a revolution in the moral climate of government? without actually taking the reins of power the proper way? the honest answer is, no, not without understanding liberal economics, not without a locus of Indian humanism, not without becoming Ambedkarite in the process - the noblest of intent will be wrecked on the anvil of ignorance, the stoutest of morals drained by delusion, in the blind repetition of history not yet understood
Ambedkar challenged the bahujan majority of India to be patient but steadfast on the mission to capture state power in the constitutional way, in which cause this agitation of the civil society is beside the point because it is unable to add to the Ambedkarite theoretical understanding of why this state is immoral in the first place, why bolshevism so fascinates the upper castes, why rule of law was better under the brits, why liberal thought and Indian culture were thriving under the brits
that is why this is a last hurrah of Gandhism, regardless of the Lokpal bill's journey and outcome, and like all other Gandhism, in reality it will be of minimum impact for the poor, and maximum publicity for window dressing cases
the fight here is not for regime change, the removal of a tyrant or party, the fight is for the moral soul, the conscience of the nation, because an end to state corruption would simultaneously mean the end of the millennia-old business model of the aryan endogamous hierarchy - sadly, history provides no cause whatsoever to hope or believe that such an outcome is possible without the use of coercive force, that Sonia Gandhi is going to turn into Mayawati, Manmohan Singh is going to turn into Nitish Kumar, the state is going to become free of corruption because of "civil disobedience" - the myth that the british left India because of "civil disobedience" is a profound insult to the memory of those brave soldiers who mutinied in defense of their generals, the memory of the patriot generals themselves, Shah Nawaz, Dhillon and Sehgal, and above all, to the memory of the widely popular Subhash Bose, who had earlier been coerced into resigning the Congress presidency by Gandhi's paroxysm of petulance, before organizing a military strategy to oust the brits
for the agitation in India to become a real movement it needs ideological clarity and a specific objective/s (like 'swaraj') as cleaner government is hard to define and quantify, rather it is a reflection of the rule of law, a measure of the competence of the executive branch - what is "rotten" in this Denmark is not a single, rogue king but rather the whole dynasty and the whole ideology, the casteism that is its' bread, the violence that is its' wine, the human vileness at its' very centre; a single, dramatic gesture (Hamletian or Gandhian, makes no difference) cannot substitute for the principled humanism of Ambedkar's classical liberal ideology
Arvind Kejriwal, Kiran Bedi, the Swami, the Anna, these are people of impeccable intentions, so the question is not whether the civil society can get another law passed, rather can the civil society effect a revolution in the moral climate of government? without actually taking the reins of power the proper way? the honest answer is, no, not without understanding liberal economics, not without a locus of Indian humanism, not without becoming Ambedkarite in the process - the noblest of intent will be wrecked on the anvil of ignorance, the stoutest of morals drained by delusion, in the blind repetition of history not yet understood
Ambedkar challenged the bahujan majority of India to be patient but steadfast on the mission to capture state power in the constitutional way, in which cause this agitation of the civil society is beside the point because it is unable to add to the Ambedkarite theoretical understanding of why this state is immoral in the first place, why bolshevism so fascinates the upper castes, why rule of law was better under the brits, why liberal thought and Indian culture were thriving under the brits
that is why this is a last hurrah of Gandhism, regardless of the Lokpal bill's journey and outcome, and like all other Gandhism, in reality it will be of minimum impact for the poor, and maximum publicity for window dressing cases
Friday, June 24, 2011
topical thoughts on land acquisition, POSCO and Singur
The POSCO case demonstrates the monstrosity of "imminent domain" crashing into the right of "catalytic property" and resulting in the sort of mess that makes perfectly well meaning people conclude that no other option is left but "majoritarian tyranny" or aggression. I will talk about the non-aggressive solution in a little bit, but to set the scene first: what has happened is some unfenced, unused government owned land, allocated to a large infrastructure project by a multinational, has been homesteaded by local farmers who are growing cash crops on it. The state wants to clear the homesteaders with a small compensation while the homesteading farmers are demanding the same compensation for vacating the land that title holding property owners received. Activists and agitators have arrived on the scene muddying up all this cozy deal making between the state and giant mercantile interests for "development" - how else could we have development unless the almighty, benevolent state does it for us?
India is being wracked by repetitions of this sort of statist predation of property rights, with the same common theme of state aggression and large corporate interests. In the forests where India's indigenous libertarian people reside, most of the property rights are held without title deed, but the problem has surfaced even where no homesteading issue complicates the affair, like in Bengal where only privately owned farm land was in play. There we are confronted with a "majoritarian tyranny" issue, as a minority of farmers chose not to sell their land and Tata's new Nano car project fell through. The political fallout proved disastrous for the ruling communists at the election.
The happy thought of communist downfall aside, the first thing that almost anyone would embrace about a free market, is that it would compel such deals to be concluded peacefully between buyers and sellers, with the state playing no other part except the prevention (or termination) of aggression. If there are 500 farmers then it is up to the buyer to persuade them as a group or as individuals. The farmers who need the money most will very likely sell first, while others for whom farming is working well enough may hold out for a higher price. In any case 500 sales have to be closed, as sellers have different prices because they value the land according to their individuality.
In tightly knit communities the farmers may choose to bargain collectively if they are aware of the buyer's larger interest. This will probably result in a higher total cost for the land but it saves the buyer the costs of closing 500 deals. The case of 400 farmers 'Yea' and 100 farmers 'Nay' can only occur if a price is being fixed. The 100 'Nays' all have a price at which point they will switch to 'Yeas'. It is an error to think a price fixed by the state is "just" when it is in fact coercion. It is usually a strong persuasion in rural communities when most of one's neighbors want to do something anyway, so I see no reason why "majoritarian tyranny" has to be kicked in at a certain fixed number. Such haste is aggression against precisely those who value the land most, and who wish to push the price higher. How could it be "just" to coerce them? Why shouldn't they demand more comprehensive compensation, like equity sharing? Cash today is not gold or silver, it is a piece of paper that loses value unless expertly invested, whereas land is a capital asset that earns and earns and earns. So is "cash for land" truly a just exchange in this context? or is it the exploitative consequence of a fatal information asymmetry?
How the farmers arrive at their agreement is of no concern to the state so long as no aggression occurs. The state's idea of "national interest" is simply the interest of the politicians, bureaucrats and their clients, more appropriately termed "criminal interest". There is NEVER a "national interest" in the aggression of rights, it is always a criminal interest.
ADDENDA:
it is the government's duty to put a fence or employ a guard or whatever, the government has no business holding land just for holding it and using it to extort - if you have to enforce "imminent domain" then the compensation to homesteaders has to be negotiated, without coercion, based upon loss of income they will experience - whenever the state makes life "easy" for one person it is at the cost of "uneasiness" for someone else, always, by an immutable economic law
Swami Agnivesh came up during the JP movement, he knows there is no substitute for parliament when rule of law has collapsed
India is being wracked by repetitions of this sort of statist predation of property rights, with the same common theme of state aggression and large corporate interests. In the forests where India's indigenous libertarian people reside, most of the property rights are held without title deed, but the problem has surfaced even where no homesteading issue complicates the affair, like in Bengal where only privately owned farm land was in play. There we are confronted with a "majoritarian tyranny" issue, as a minority of farmers chose not to sell their land and Tata's new Nano car project fell through. The political fallout proved disastrous for the ruling communists at the election.
The happy thought of communist downfall aside, the first thing that almost anyone would embrace about a free market, is that it would compel such deals to be concluded peacefully between buyers and sellers, with the state playing no other part except the prevention (or termination) of aggression. If there are 500 farmers then it is up to the buyer to persuade them as a group or as individuals. The farmers who need the money most will very likely sell first, while others for whom farming is working well enough may hold out for a higher price. In any case 500 sales have to be closed, as sellers have different prices because they value the land according to their individuality.
In tightly knit communities the farmers may choose to bargain collectively if they are aware of the buyer's larger interest. This will probably result in a higher total cost for the land but it saves the buyer the costs of closing 500 deals. The case of 400 farmers 'Yea' and 100 farmers 'Nay' can only occur if a price is being fixed. The 100 'Nays' all have a price at which point they will switch to 'Yeas'. It is an error to think a price fixed by the state is "just" when it is in fact coercion. It is usually a strong persuasion in rural communities when most of one's neighbors want to do something anyway, so I see no reason why "majoritarian tyranny" has to be kicked in at a certain fixed number. Such haste is aggression against precisely those who value the land most, and who wish to push the price higher. How could it be "just" to coerce them? Why shouldn't they demand more comprehensive compensation, like equity sharing? Cash today is not gold or silver, it is a piece of paper that loses value unless expertly invested, whereas land is a capital asset that earns and earns and earns. So is "cash for land" truly a just exchange in this context? or is it the exploitative consequence of a fatal information asymmetry?
How the farmers arrive at their agreement is of no concern to the state so long as no aggression occurs. The state's idea of "national interest" is simply the interest of the politicians, bureaucrats and their clients, more appropriately termed "criminal interest". There is NEVER a "national interest" in the aggression of rights, it is always a criminal interest.
ADDENDA:
it is the government's duty to put a fence or employ a guard or whatever, the government has no business holding land just for holding it and using it to extort - if you have to enforce "imminent domain" then the compensation to homesteaders has to be negotiated, without coercion, based upon loss of income they will experience - whenever the state makes life "easy" for one person it is at the cost of "uneasiness" for someone else, always, by an immutable economic law
Swami Agnivesh came up during the JP movement, he knows there is no substitute for parliament when rule of law has collapsed
Monday, December 13, 2010
Saturday, December 11, 2010
Dr. Manmohan Singh worries about parliamentary democracy, in the absurd theatre of daily Delhi
oh dear, the man who has never won election by the people is worried now
for perspective, Dr. Manmohan Singh is a PM who rules from the upper house of India's parliament, he was elected by the state legislators of the small state of Assam, not directly the people - a bit of a 'loophole' in the constitution was used by Indira Gandhi in the 1980s to establish the precedent of PMs sitting in the upper house even after losing a popular election for the lower house (other ministers are also being brought into govt. through this route)
the good doctor is heading a govt. led by the very party that is the cancer in Indian democracy, the party that has leveraged the historical capital in its' name to relentlessly subvert and evade constitutionality with every sinew and fiber of its' autocratic being, rendering the polity a putrid swamp of lies, legal obfuscations and feudal skull duggery!
the party carries the same name as the broad coalition that led the civil society protests against British rule in India, but today bears no resemblance whatsoever to it, it has no ground organization to speak of and obviously therefore no internal institutions of popular democracy, it buys elections the standard keynesian way, and preferably with the help of criminals!
oh dear, the man who has never won election by the people is worried now
for perspective, Dr. Manmohan Singh is a PM who rules from the upper house of India's parliament, he was elected by the state legislators of the small state of Assam, not directly the people - a bit of a 'loophole' in the constitution was used by Indira Gandhi in the 1980s to establish the precedent of PMs sitting in the upper house even after losing a popular election for the lower house (other ministers are also being brought into govt. through this route)
the good doctor is heading a govt. led by the very party that is the cancer in Indian democracy, the party that has leveraged the historical capital in its' name to relentlessly subvert and evade constitutionality with every sinew and fiber of its' autocratic being, rendering the polity a putrid swamp of lies, legal obfuscations and feudal skull duggery!
the party carries the same name as the broad coalition that led the civil society protests against British rule in India, but today bears no resemblance whatsoever to it, it has no ground organization to speak of and obviously therefore no internal institutions of popular democracy, it buys elections the standard keynesian way, and preferably with the help of criminals!
oh dear, the man who has never won election by the people is worried now
Friday, December 10, 2010
Block ripping Friedman's tolerance, or lack thereof - you decide
Walter Block on Milton Friedman
the bit about Mises stomping off with "you are all a bunch of socialists!" is priceless! - in conclusion Block mentions Mother Teresa and Gandhi among others
The difference between the non aggression principle and Gandhi's non violence couldn't be more profound. Gandhi was seeking to bring a moral change in the aggressor, to 'force' a repentance in the aggressor through sheer volume of tolerance.
He had a good enough understanding of the English conscience to know how to smite it through the media, but of course, quite different results would have obtained in the Spanish or French empires. The libertarian understanding of state and empire would permit no assumptions about the quality of conscience in state officials, because it is understood the moral trash of a society will accrete, and elevate, in the state structure.
The tactic of fast-unto-death was primarily a media tactic, a clever calculation on the British empire's policy not to let Gandhi become a martyr. He never tried, for instance, to convince his countrymen to abandon caste by fasting, because certain death would have been his reward for that fast! The hindu "tolerance" is for doctrinal diversity and pantheism, but only within the framework of Aryan supremacy, i.e. caste hierarchy supported by state law, and enforced with violence. Life for the so-called "dalits" of India has been one long Jalianwala Bagh nightmare.
Liberty requires no tolerance of evil, no tolerance of aggression. We require only that you do not initiate aggression. If it is initiated against you it is not only your right it is also your duty to terminate the aggression with the utmost urgency and force. The histories being written by Indian nationalists perpetuate the fiction that Gandhi's movement won Indian independence from Britain. The truth of the matter is the empire ran into a terminal obstruction of its' own coercive force, a mutiny in the Indian army, led by the soldiers' refusal to accept the court martialed executions of three Indian generals for treason - terminal, because the Indian army was "the sword arm of the [worldwide] empire" (Lord Wavell)
Walter Block on Milton Friedman
the bit about Mises stomping off with "you are all a bunch of socialists!" is priceless! - in conclusion Block mentions Mother Teresa and Gandhi among others
The difference between the non aggression principle and Gandhi's non violence couldn't be more profound. Gandhi was seeking to bring a moral change in the aggressor, to 'force' a repentance in the aggressor through sheer volume of tolerance.
He had a good enough understanding of the English conscience to know how to smite it through the media, but of course, quite different results would have obtained in the Spanish or French empires. The libertarian understanding of state and empire would permit no assumptions about the quality of conscience in state officials, because it is understood the moral trash of a society will accrete, and elevate, in the state structure.
The tactic of fast-unto-death was primarily a media tactic, a clever calculation on the British empire's policy not to let Gandhi become a martyr. He never tried, for instance, to convince his countrymen to abandon caste by fasting, because certain death would have been his reward for that fast! The hindu "tolerance" is for doctrinal diversity and pantheism, but only within the framework of Aryan supremacy, i.e. caste hierarchy supported by state law, and enforced with violence. Life for the so-called "dalits" of India has been one long Jalianwala Bagh nightmare.
Liberty requires no tolerance of evil, no tolerance of aggression. We require only that you do not initiate aggression. If it is initiated against you it is not only your right it is also your duty to terminate the aggression with the utmost urgency and force. The histories being written by Indian nationalists perpetuate the fiction that Gandhi's movement won Indian independence from Britain. The truth of the matter is the empire ran into a terminal obstruction of its' own coercive force, a mutiny in the Indian army, led by the soldiers' refusal to accept the court martialed executions of three Indian generals for treason - terminal, because the Indian army was "the sword arm of the [worldwide] empire" (Lord Wavell)
Walter Block on Milton Friedman
Thursday, December 9, 2010
Facebook's Zuckerberg joins the party, pledges fortune to charity
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/facebook-ceo-to-give-fortune-to-charity-2010-12-09?dist=afterbell
this is what freedom does to peoples' hearts... the 'gupta dhana' (hidden wealth) concept practised by the banias is a deeply ingrained defense against historically regular theft by the aryan state, it is a way of refunding themselves after economic demolitions resulting from inter-state warfare... indeed 'gupta dhana' is, I believe, the key to why banias have been able to quickly adapt to "liberalization" in recent decades, they have gone through these vagaries of state policy many times before...
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/facebook-ceo-to-give-fortune-to-charity-2010-12-09?dist=afterbell
this is what freedom does to peoples' hearts... the 'gupta dhana' (hidden wealth) concept practised by the banias is a deeply ingrained defense against historically regular theft by the aryan state, it is a way of refunding themselves after economic demolitions resulting from inter-state warfare... indeed 'gupta dhana' is, I believe, the key to why banias have been able to quickly adapt to "liberalization" in recent decades, they have gone through these vagaries of state policy many times before...
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/facebook-ceo-to-give-fortune-to-charity-2010-12-09?dist=afterbell
India takes world No. 1 title in state corruption
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Corruption-on-the-rise-54-Indians-paid-bribe-last-year/articleshow/7071768.cms
the way it works in the shiny new "liberal" India, the "new normals" of aryanist fascism are essentially identical to the old normals of brahminism, i.e. the brahmin controlled state "redistributes" wealth to ensure "justice"...
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Corruption-on-the-rise-54-Indians-paid-bribe-last-year/articleshow/7071768.cms
the way it works in the shiny new "liberal" India, the "new normals" of aryanist fascism are essentially identical to the old normals of brahminism, i.e. the brahmin controlled state "redistributes" wealth to ensure "justice"...
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Corruption-on-the-rise-54-Indians-paid-bribe-last-year/articleshow/7071768.cms
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)