[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

The key question:



Ash:

"It is not because I'm patronizing the average Hindu that I say that you
should not have the right to try to change his religion, as you suggest.
Instead, it is because I listen to him and see what he wants! Of course
he is smart enough to make up his own mind, nad guess what he's been
deciding of late?"

I assure you that we did not word either the Free citizen thing or the
preamble to give such "rights" to change anyone's religion. The issue is
not of 'listening' to the popular opinion either. In that case, one
should simply close shop, stop studying, stop thinking and go about with
a Gieger counter which registers the opinion of everyone around us.

The issue that you raised was something I am astonished at: you appear
to justify use of physical force if someone uses economic temptation.

Let me give you my simple view (I am quoting someone but I'll exclude
the name since that is irrelevant here):

"Men are imperfect beings. Therefore the problem of social organization
is AS MUCH a negative problem of preventing 'bad' people from doing
harm as of enabling 'good' people to do good; and of course, 'bad' and
'good' people may be the same, depending on who is judging them."

Question: How can we provide freedom to anyone if we allow the use of
physical force? Physical force and freedom are poles apart. 

By the way, I can define physical force very clearly and specifically:
i.e., contact with a citizen's body or property with the intention to
harm.

Can you define economic force so clearly? Can it be a fool-proof
definition as the one defined above? Can ANYONE including a child,
deduce the use of such force in each situation?

And can you show how and when, the use of economic force, so defined,
permits one common citizen, X, to use physical force against another
citizen, Y? 

Ash said:"I have found none who is more eager to build an equitable
society."

Ash: I am hoping that we are building a society where citizens can live
as free citizens. Equity is NOT part of the concept of freedom. Perhaps
that is where why we are unable to see things so clearly together on
this issue, as we see on many others.

I want us to guarantee freedom (i.e., non use of violence against a
person) and economic prosperity - conditional on effort put in, to each
citizen. You wish to guarantee equity. That is quite a complex and
subjective matter. Socialists tried to promise equity and failed. I
would really like you to specify your definition of equity - and also
the definition of a level of economic force which permits use of
physical force.

(By the way, Puneet: let this issue be resolved: I do think, as always,
that we must understand each other on the basic principles first: others
will follow necessarily).

SS


















----------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a posting to India_Policy Discussion list:  debate@indiapolicy.org
Rules, Procedures, Archives:            http://www.indiapolicy.org/debate/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------