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

Re: Mr. Ashish should respect....

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


Hi Rohit,
Wow! That was too fast!!!
"I do believe that one cannot start with the basis or
stated goal of "doing good for people" whenever this
has been the driving motive it has caused more
problems than solved. The underlying basis is that people cannot 
do good for themselves - which is wrong."

I agree with you here. "Doing good for people" is not the start. 
Neither is it the sole end objective, as perhaps you understood. 
An individual should do what is good for him (Adam Smith part) as 
well as what is good for the group (Nash addendum and collectively 
this leads to what is called Nash Equilibrium). Unfortunately, 
capitalistic model seems to be lacking the latter, which is why 
you have corporates (individual) interfering in public policy 
making and hence causing the damage to the "group". And this is 
exactly in contrast to what Adam Smith suggested would happen to 
the society. And equally unfortunate is a socialistic governance 
where, in pursuit of so-called "public good", the government 
actually impoverishes the public. I am no economist by any measure 
but with whatever political history that I know, all theories were 
developed under specific socio-political influence of respective 
times; right from Democritus to Gandhi. None are absolute. This is 
also true for most people in this debate, I guess. Hence my 
argument that what has been good for other nations need not be 
good for India and perhaps a need for radical rethinking of 
suitable ideology or perhpas a gradual absorption of suitable 

Thanks for the IMHO thing.

"So what is this "Indian context"?
what are the charecteristics of it?
Should we view people living in the India as "Indians"
first or individuals first?
If we view people as individuals first then we can
surely arrive at a system which is geared to
protection of their rights and geared to provide a
conducive environment for their progress (progress
will be achieved by themselves not by anybody else)."

I would not detail on what "Indian context" is because it would be 
like "preaching to the enlightened ones". However, what is the 
"conducive environment" you are talking about? From what I gather, 
it is what this debate has been most talking for viz., capitalism, 
free markets, deregulation and disinvestment. While I am for it, 
as I have always maintained, all I insist is a careful and phased 
diving into the same. I see a large number of people unable to 
take its advantage of it in the PRESENT India. This, in turn, 
necessitates the redefinition of the very "people" for which such 
system is intended. Is it meant for all people or is it meant for 
people who are capable of availing its benefits NOW. Some 
statistics on Indian rural-urban demographc distribtuions might 
help here. It is this " people cost" that I am referring to. I am 
not even talking about the the middle term to long term 
socio-political impacts in India.

"We cannot promulgate a socio-econo-political model
with a great detail. That is why individual freedom
coupled with capitalism works so well - there are very
few ground rules. The algorithm outlined here is what
the planning comission does and we all know how well
that has worked."

That *almost* sounds as if you are proposing Anarchism here except 
you made a cautious recovery to include "ground rules". I would 
like to know what are those ground rules as applied to Indian 
context and we can go from there.

"That I feel would be a robust design of an ideal
theory for individuals."

Ideal theory for "Individuals" is Anarchism; no government; no 
regulation. So are you suggesting that "Individual" be held about 
the Constitution of India? Just seeking your clarification here.

Thanks, Rohit, for your references. This is really getting 


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