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

Re: Re: &quotprakash chandrashekar" <prakash7uc@rediffmail.com>

Please help make the Manifesto better, or accept it, and propagate it!

there is a huge difference between saying free the market and "free the
state" (whtever that means). You forgot my first statement. REGULATIONS.
there are a lot of unnecesary regulations which preven the formation of
univs. scrap these. You will get a whole range of univs to choose from 

and ofcourse, state owned.

the immense creativity of people can deliver solutions faster and more
diverse than we can think. When we free the market, we free people like you
and me to explore all sorts of solutions to problems as long as we do not
use violent force or fraud to achieve our goals. 

government is inherently force. the government cannot calculate like people
can as to what we want. there is abslutely no parallel between individuals
pooling money and starting an enterprise and the state doing the same.
------------- Original Message --------------
Charu datt <charuX@lucent.com> wrote:
From:Charu datt <charuX@lucent.com>
Date:Tue, 13 Mar 2001 14:11:58 -0800 (PST)
Subject:Re: "prakash  chandrashekar" <prakash7uc@rediffmail.com>

i might point out that this is parallel to the
argument put forward to justify state owned enterprises: since large
require large capital inputs, it is desirable to give the state the power to
raise this capital [and for those who control the state, power over the
capital and the intituitions created].

the first argument relies on the virtue of the capitalist-philanthropist to
misuse the power that comes from having control of capital and
intituitions. the second relies on the virtue of controllers of state capital
and power to not abuse their power.

you again forget, the only power a capitalist has is to offer you a choice.
It is government that forces you.
given that most private large capital accumulation is not characterised by or
driven by philanthropic motives, and likewise neither is the accumulation
of political power [infact both are frequently characterised by what we might
call 'criminal'],
the assertion that "Free the market and you can get .."
is parallel to arguing "Free the state [give the rulers more power] and you
get .."
please check my earlier argument.
the bottom line is that allowing unchecked power to anyone politician or
is not going to advance society as a whole but will only advance the
welfare of
those people who hold disproportionate power over others.

capitalism is inherently a system which will not allow accumulation of
power, if there is a small change made. That small change is to tax land
value instead of taxing production. Power comes only from privilege.


Chat with your friends as soon as they come online. Get Rediff Bol at

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