[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 Yogesh,

Thanks for the sane response. Hopefully we can finally
turn this forum to focus on real issues.
Please see my response below. Also I think the basic
debate is about the ideal form of governance for
Any ideas how we can take the gist of our argument and
put it up @ IPI?

> 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,

Capitalism cannot stand by itself - it is an economic
model which relies heavily on freedom of the
individual to act by his own choice. It relies on the
basics of right life, liberty and property - which you
would agree are the absolute fundamental gaurantees
that a government must provide for.
So when you say - " what is good for the group" is not
achieved by capitalism it is wrong. A free people can
choose to align themselves in any number of groups and
strive for their own benefits via the group.

> which is why 
> you have corporates (individual) interfering in
> public policy 
> making and hence causing the damage to the "group".

Actually the core issue here is that govt has the
right to stop value based competition via legislation.
So corporates would obviously want to pay off some
politicians protection money. And this is a vicious
cycle. However if one were to say "govt has no right
to legislate in matters of trade and economics". What
would you think the ramifications of that would be?

> 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 

I think we ought to stop thinking of India as a
special case. We are all humans with same capabilities
and same drawbacks.
Obviously it is special to all of us here in this
forum, we were born there and have fond memories about
the country.

> and perhaps a need for radical
> rethinking of 
> suitable ideology or perhpas a gradual absorption of
> suitable alternative.

I agree that there must be a gradualization strategy.
However what should be gradualized is the impact of
govt removal. What if one were to say "Five years from
now India will become a totally capitalistic state.
All govt grants and subsidies will expire by then.
However all restrictions are lifted immediately" How
would that impact us?

> 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 

We can never create a system which will cushion the
impact of a dramatic step like moving to capitalism.
However it will help us in long term - long-term here
is max 10 years.
Can we do an excercise of concluding that we have
chosen capitalism and see what the impact can be and
see how each can be mitigated?

> 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". 

Ground rules are very basic - right to life liberty
and property.
Government provides the following
Executive: Protection from external and internal
threats to the above mentioned rights.
Judiciary : for protecting rights in a just manner and
resplving disputes.
Legislature: applying basic principles promulgated
above to current scenario and thereby providing
concrete list for the abstracts mentioned above. (See
American Bill of rights - the first 9 amendments to
theri constitution to see what I mean).

> 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; 

Nope individuals cannot survive in anarchism - that's
jungle law. Brute force will always win.
However protected rights to life liberty and property
removes the threat of force and provides the
background for "individuals" to strive and succeed
according to their own capabilities.

> 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 
> better.


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