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

ndividual before nation




----------------------------------------------------------------------
Postings not related to the writing of the Manifesto or policy chapters
are likely to be summarily rejected. Thanks for your understanding. IPI
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I amn't sure (I plain don't know) if we are mature enough to handle
something like a democratic geographic secession, but I am quite certain

that the only way for us to reach that level of maturity is for us to
put "people before nation" instead of the traditional "nation before
people".

I admit I am only an undergraduate, and therefore inexperienced and
naïve, and very likely to be wrong about many things; so, I will say
what I have to say with great humility. But I will say my bit anyway...
onward through falsification…! (Sorry Sir Karl...)

Shashi Shekhar says:

>>3. Only by having such a statement in our Constitution can we claim
>to
a be a democracy: By the People, FOR the People, OF the People.  >Also,
>> it
>>is the only position compatible with the Citizens' declaration of
>>sovereignty, where People are bigger and more important than a
>Nation.

>Well the incompatibility with the Citizen's declaration of sovereignity

>is a fact but that the Citizen's declaration of sovereignity takes
>precedence over the constitution is notion which is wrong.

Pardon me for replying to this, and correct me if I am wrong, Dr.
Sabhlok. (Here I must apologise to Dr. Roy for calling him Mr. Roy in
earlier posts).

I don't think Dr. Sabhlok means to put individual sovereignity over the
constitution... he puts citizens' sovereignity over the collective
"nation". I'm no political science expert, but I don't think
nation=constitution. You could have a constitution that encourages
(guarantees?) citizens' sovereignity (to whatever degree).

>When there is no gurantee, the laws of the jungle operate and
>      its "Survival of the Fittest".

Herbert Spencer was a great classical liberal, but I don't think he was
entirely correct about the above.. "Survival of the Fittest"... I don't
know how everyone can keep bandying about as mindless a statement as
that... Yes, the fit are more likely to survive in a more libertarian,
naturally evolving setup, but 'fitness' isn't the only criteria for the
survival of a meme or a group or an individual in cultural (social)
evolution... (depends on how you define fitness, of course... would you
describe it as "what 'fits' society"?)...

I think one of the main 'laws' of cultural evolution ("laws of the
jungle"? Uugh!) is: success is imitated; failiure, laid by the wayside.
I see nothing wrong with that. Carl Menger famously asked:

 "How can it be that institutions that serve the common welfare and are
extremely significant for its development come into being without a
common will directed towards establishing them?"

As Hayek claims (and philosophers have claimed before him), the answer
is cultural evolution. Spontaneous Order.

The LAWLESSNESS of the jungle can be eliminated (or reduced to
considerable degree) by the Rule of Law ( and a naturally evolving
systems of morals)... by the constitutional guarantee that, above all,
the individual's sovereignity will be protected unless it impinges on
another's.

>The gurantee for the civil way of life that we are lucky to
>       enjoy today is the soceital consensus position on ensuring
>       the sustenance and continuation on our way of life.
>      - Where this consensus has failed we have seen historically
>       the laws of the jungle have operated.
>      - The consensus existed because of a common minimum ground
>        to which all sections agreed and relinquished some
>        individual freedom.
>      - The consensus broke when individuals demanded back those
>        aspects of individual freedom they had earlier relinquished.

I don't know what you mean. The consensus as understood by the framers
of constitution? When did all sections agree to relinquish individual
freedom? Were they asked? What civil way of life?

> agree that a nation is such a place. But as I have said before in an
>earlier posting the nation is what its people shape it out be.

Geographical shape?
:), just kidding.

>I dont see anything wrong with Nation Before People. If people were to
>be before nation then there would never be any justification for a
>nation to arm its citizens and put them on the frontiers exposing them
>to a very high degree of personal risk.

>So would you say that in a country where people come before the nation
>there cannot be a military or there is no need for a military. How
would
>you gurantee the security of such a nation and its way of life.

>Forget external threats how would you guard against internal threats.
>How would you justify at a soceital level deployment of physically
>strong individuals for the security of physically weak individuals at
>the cost of their personal lives.

>How would you reconcile the job responsibilities of a security
personnel
>against his exercising his right to ensure his physical well-being and
>thus declining to perform his duties.

You say that arming our citizens means putting means putting nation
before individuals; and therefore the latter is justified. Arming our
citizens also would mean allowing them to use violence. Would we then,
going by your logic, be required to 'justify' violence and killing
people? Should we, because it is justified in war, allow it in civil
life?

Putting the nation before "yourself" (not "the people") can be expected
and justified in a situation like war... not in ordinary life.  It is a
service that the volunteer can expected to be paid well for. I think
what would be in order here is a marginal analysis. We aren't putting
him at risk - he is putting himself at risk. The individual volunteers
for the army -- he doesn't require intellectual justification.
Individual sovereignity doesn't mean individual selfishness (though his
unselfishness might involve a bit of self-interest). If he "declines to
perform his duties", he has to face the consequences that naturally
affect those who retreat on a contract.

There are just too many reasons why it is more advantageous to put the
individual before the nation. I can only begin to list them, and will
attempt to do so (provide some reasons) in the next post. This one is
way too big.

Chirag Kasbekar
TYBA (Econ, Socio)
St. Xavier's College, Mumbai.
chirag_k@hotmail.com






--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the National Debate on System Reform.       debate@indiapolicy.org
Rules, Procedures, Archives:            http://www.indiapolicy.org/debate/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------