Unjustified , intolerant and dumb

Muslims have high birth rate because ....

1) They intend to make India Islamic state.

2) They intend to achieve electoral superiority.

This unfortunate meme is frequently heard from overzealous nationalist hindu As a circumspect hindu and nationalist, let me disagree.

Muslims have, well many issues. If looked religion vise muslims inIndia will inevitably come out as worse off than other communities, and to a large extent it is themselves or rather the educated among them who are to blame.

They have been increasingly getting ghettosized, they refuse to entertain any reasoned arguement for reform and cry foul if someone not from the community chooses to comment on their state. This hesitation results in continuing sliding down in all parameters. And this will continue , I am afraid to a most unsavoury conclusion, unless it is stemmed. This will require less of Syed Shahabuddin and more of Kalbe Sadiq, but what is more it will require coming out of this self fulfilling seize complex , eschewing ignorance and less thought about face saving gimmicks.

The detour that I took became long winded one, now coming to the point while Muslims may be faring poorly in population control it doesnt mean that there is a deliberate conspiracy to dominate Hindus simply by over reproduction (as much as misguided Hindus will like to believe and what is more misguided muslim clerics will like to believe) , it might be economical neccessity , it might be ignorance or it might be religious orthodoxy what it is not is some Saudi conspiracy, and this is as important for Hindus to understand as for Muslims.

The reason, well paronia and fear mongering undermine not only spirit of a particular community but also of the nation. And if there is one thing that hindus can not afford to undermine it is the country , it is our "punya bhumi" , our "janam bhumi" and our " karma bhumi", here Hinduism was born and here it will take it's last sigh. So whatever we do, let us not anything which harms it's sons and by association this sacred land itself.

When Free Market Supporters Slug it out

Just as I had finished writing trite prose about free market, this is what I read.
I fail to see where is the disagreement ? May be it is because I am a novice in economics but it seems more like a case of either talking past each other or splitting idealogical hair.

I will try to summarise in the best fashion I can

Shivam stresses the importance of government (or a impartial regulating body) as regulator for ensuring that free market doesn't get hijacked by monopolists or oligopolist (here I admit I have a very dim recollection of monopolist from one semester of economy course, which I hardly attended , but simplified it means market where product sold by sellers are not differentiated to a large degree) and chides libertarians (in a fashion) for not stressing this.

Amit Verma responds to this by saying while libertarians are all for law, a good law enforcement system being a cornerstone for libertanism, empowering government will just bring grief and opining what Shivam's arguement is a non sequitur

The reason that I find trouble with this is that this to me seems like playing both sides.
Arguing for law enforcement and regulation and at the same time opposing role of government for regulation seems a far fetched idea.

I admit that some industries could be self regulating is specific situations (I have read it but have forgotten all about it), however it is not a universal rule applicable for all places and all times.

IMO in most of the cases Government is a qualified authority to regulate market.
I don't think that what Shivam said was such a non sequitur either.

Mridula joined in and supported idea of regulation for what she called imperfect market.

Amit Verma and RaviKiran at that point started defending free market and implied that Pro- regulators were doing a strawman routine, which to me seems a tad unjustified.

From then on the debate started making even less sense to me, Amit and Ravi were defending free market , whereas Shivam and Mridula were pointing out that theories apart, if free market has to be established in real world, government will need to intervene, and real world being what it is, free market will remain an idealization, it will be achieved in few instances but market will be imperfect and it is best to take that into calculation.

Later on the battleground was shifted to here, here, here, here , here , and here.

All this seemed more and more disconnected to me. I mean what is the point libertarians trying to make other than defense of free-market , which is not being questioned at all !


I mean where is dissonance ?

Here I will state that by free - market I understand an idealized market where buyers and sellers trade accoring to condition of supply or demand and no coercion in form of asymmetrical power is occurs. If this is inaccurate then I think this arguement may begin to make sense to me.

Free market to be free it need government intervention in benign way, as much as libertarian horror for government (which I share), I do not see any way of doing away with government.

Gautam opines that only form of monopoly that is possible is legal monopoly, I think this might be true for long term, however other monopolies do exist and can cause lots of mischief in short and medium term. As in long term we are all dead, may be it will be good to tidy up short term and long medium term.

Free market for dummies (like myself)

I support free market. I do not yet fully understand it and what is more my knowledge of economics doesnt extend much beyond supply-demand curve. This, I admit, makes me butt of jokes and subject of ridicule, however I still persist with my belief. The reason is that I have seen effects of both. I am still learning about both.

I have seen the ignominy of living in a socialist utopia, and even though I was not the worst affected , having lived a sheltered life, I have seen enough to develop a distaste of socialism to last my whole life. Where do I start ?A bribe given for getting LPG cylinders, for getting ration cards, for cement. Waiting extending up to years for things like telephone or scooter. Creating artificial scarcity in name of poor, while at the same time ensuring that poor remains so.
Of watching as cities after cities die out owing to combination of the trade union thuggery and moral bankruptcy of our leaders seduced and corrputed by the power vested to them by a socialist state.

Of a place where ambitions have withered and dreams have been bonsaized, where, a father or a mother prays for son a clerical job not because it offers honest living, but because it offers avenue for corruption and life time assurance of employment not having any connection with performance. Or listening cringing to conversations in household holding forth on why a relative is a "desirable boy" because he is in a position where he wields power and use this power for "upar ki kamai".

Of a nation which is content to play Gungadeen or "we are like that" or "we were better under british" or "trains were punctual during emergency".
Of youth who learns through rot and earns degree liberal art or social sciences, not because it interests him, but because in order to get a job degree is the only criteria.
Cringing like a criminal in front of every babu, pleading like a murder convict for what is due to one. Or despair of a retired who is running through pillar to post for his pension.
Of belonging to a country, where everyone is for sale but the official motto is Gandhism.
Living in utter gloom, content to be mediocre, hiding the privations by spouting wisdom on how contentment is supreme religion. Or coining slogans of "Mera Bharat Mahan", without bothering to understand the greatness or meanness.

Of surrendering our will and reason to communist- in- entrenched positions, of accepting the disrepute, making fatalism superior to dharma.
Or accepting perhaps the most vile and dishonest aphrosim "From each according to his capability , To each according to his need"and internalized it as a mantra to live.

Reform and globalization has shown a ray of light, made us believe that we can be contender, it is not evil to profit, made cell phones and washing machines affordable.It has earned a new respect for us, from others but what is more important from self.
It has lifted, even if a little bit, the pall of gloom, has rescued us from genuflecting before every little tool of state machinary. I admit, this has not happened without it's share of controversies and still majority toils in oppression.
The solution to this, however is to dispatch socialism to where it truly belongs , dustbin of history along with white men's burden and eugenics.

How much are MP's worth ?

Recent sting operation by Aaj Tak-CobraPost has, in addition to usual cries of "Bloody politicians", evoked another response, which is whether Indian politicians are poorly paid and their renumerations should be raised by how much so as to remove the incentives for corruption.

Before stating my thoughts, I will like to say this.

Government in India is too intervening which increases the power as well as responsibility of our legislature as well as executive, resulting in corruption and inefficiancy.
However I doubt that whether it is possible to limit goverment to a benign level.
Government will always have a potential to cause mischief for venal reasons

The answer to first question can be yes and no, depending on perspective. For example one could argue that considering annual package of Indian MP which is more than 2 lakhs pa (including allowances), is much more than Indian per capita income, which hovers at around 40,000 pa. This view, however misses the fact that in order to attract best persons , compensation which is comparable to other areas should be offered.

This brings to question, as to what should be the correct renumerations to minimze any incentives for corruption.
IMO, the job of a representative is much more risky than that of a CEO, the reason is that while for a CEO to remain in job has to create wealth and hence satisfy almost the only expectation of stockholders, the voters have much diverse expectations, what is more the expectations are vague , they can be high or low, it could be about economical well being or religious freedom or related to caste identity.
Here I am not going into merits of expectations, for present discussion it suffices that they are not easy. What is more a CEO on losing job can expect another employment, a representative has no such recourse.

This brings to a lemma that a representative must be paid as much as, if not more than a CEO.
However, one difference (in degrees) between CEO and representative is the incentive for corruption, in a government as you climb the ladder the potential to gain from corruption increases exponentially, assuming it is impossible to defang government, there will always be scope for corruption, what is more since the expectations and awareness of voters are much less than stockholders, the threshhold for temptation is set low.

What this means is that regardless of how attractive the numeration there will always be incentive for corruption. One prevention is that law can create enough disincentive to discourage such behaviours. However, in this case our representatives are the law makers, if one is tempted, how easy then to pervert law. One could argue, that as long as system is in general sufficient, such attempt can be blocked, however misfit will always try to weedle through a gap.

The solution for this is to stress the importance of vigilance along with that of institutions.
Institutions can be perverted, and while insitutions may be robust or fragile, none of the them are unbreachable, only our well informed opinions are ultimate guarantee.

This issue incidentally reminded me of another issue that is perplexing me. I will try to write about it soon.

Evil: Shunned

Well, the good news is that blogs are once again kosher.

I will indulge once more in strictly non productive persuits.

However, I am not yet willing to strike Sys -Ad off my list of monsters.

Citizens and obligations

Amit Verma, in this post, expressed uneasiness at what Sulman Rushdie wrote about obligations of citizens, in Amit's words.

"I'm not comfortable with the way Rushdie phrases it. I think the basis of every society should be a respect for individual freedoms, that allows every person to live his or her life as he or she pleases, provided they don't infringe on anyone else's freedom to do so. As countries change, I think it is dangerous to hold on to a notion of what words like "French" or "Indian" or "American" mean, and to insist that everyone in those countries adhere to those notions. That opens the way for cultural nationalism. Our values, instead, should be based on basic human rights, on a respect of individual liberties."

This is what I think is libertarian position. I don't feel comfortable with this position, tragically I am not knowledgable enough to propose another position or even convincingly refute it.

The reason I feel uncomfortable is according to libertanism society is aggregate of individuals and the only benefit to be derived is in form of security or division of labour.

IMO, there is something more about society, just like human is not just the sum total of individual cells. This, I admit is not a very useful analogy and what is more it leans towards collectivists ideologies. However I think it is possible to balance individual and society, not diminishing either or making meaningless.

But coming to the question of citizenship, I think what Mr Rushdie advocates is a very good proposition, every nation has its own ethos.

Just to consider two examples, all the american blogs that I read, most of the arguements, for or against any issue move around american constitution.

I was puzzled by this approach, I always thought that why should anyone in as civilized country as US (this was before I became aware of reality of the forbidding alleys) require guns and such an impressive collection at that! and how can any sensbile not see the inherent absurdity of defending guns regardless of what constitution says.
Similarly I was surprised controversy regarding "flag burning", I was of the opinion considering that flag was a symbol for what nation stands , such acts should be punishable regardless of what consitution says.
However, slowly I have realized that to Americans constitution is not mererly a document, it is what defines them and the nation. Unless and untill , there are overwhelming reasons and irrefutable logic, any law which proposes to go against grain of constitution is much more than frowned upon. In short, American essence is American constitution.

On the contrary, Indians never base their arguements on Indians constitution, unless it is of highly esoteric nature. Most of Indians will base their arguements on their world view.
Admittedly one of the reasons is that American constitution is brief and to the point, whileIndian constitution tries too hard and doesnt exactly overwhelm one. However, one other arguement (and in my view more signifant) is that America started with its constitution, it is the foundation on which US stands today, so it is natural that it will be the essence of americans, whereas, India existed long before the constitution and what is more much of what it achieved is much greater than any constitution could and what is more important beyond the scope of constitution.
What it means is that while our legal issues are still settled by framework of constitution, the amendment to constitution itself is more flexible and can draw from more sources.

In the similar fashion German can be described as logical , Russian can be descirbed as inherently christian or paradoxically tartar.

What this means is while in a free society everybody is entitled to his or her opinion, in order to participate in a meaningful way a person should try to alien with the ethos.

Ghettoziation or disdain will be impediment, in real life, to the very tolerance that libertarianism aspires for.

Update : Sandeep weighs in, I think where Mr Amit Verma and Me (and possibly Sandeep ) differ is , according to him libertanism is GUT of sociology and rest is the matter of detail. This may be true ofcourse, I have yet to form enough opinion of mine, however any theory which ignores reality for ideal, remains just that, a theory. The claim that nation has ceased to be relevant because particular idea is all what is neccessary for progress of humanity may be honest and correct, but in reality it sets up absolutist position, which in most cases lead to intellectual and often physical tyranny.

Nation, religion anything that has arisen is not because of an ancient conspiracy hatched by bourgeois/religious freak to exploit poor or undermine intellect, but often out of genuine inquiry into imponderable, the results might have been incorrect, but the process has continued, if progress of humanity is coupled with libertanism or indeed any -ism, the process of engagement and disengagement with what exists has to be done with reason and patience, seizing the bastille is a romantic idea, but to be used occasionally.

Evil : Discovered

I had earlier opined how capitalism was inherently evil, because it expected even compelled to work. However I have discovered the true evil and which can be only admitted as undescribable horror. Well, that face of what is sinister is ... My Sys - Ad.

To cut a very painful story short, he has blocked all the blogs under "Internet Communication", this was ofcourse not the begining, he had blocked Amit Verma and Gaurav Sabnis under "Pornography", unfortunately I did not object , "Gaurav", so I thought, "Why these are unwashed libertarians, the creep!". I thought it was only proper that such shoe - fetishist be recognized as what they are, peddlars of dirty, bizarre world view.
However today to my utter horror, I found that I could not get my daily doze of bloggers who are sane and squeaky clean. I cautiosly approached that schmuck and politely enquired , "WTF" ?. He looked up at me and with a smirk which would have chilled Pran and Ajit to the core, mouthed those devastating words, "Non productive sites". I was vanquished.
This conversation has shaken me. I have stopped believing in the goodness of humanity, and what is more inevitability of logic.

It is most outrageous that I am expected to work, especially considering that India is a socialist country and work is something which is not mentioned in decent conversation.
If this continues they will soon expect results from me. The result is that I am writing at a cybercafe and what is more infuriating is that I am writing such crap , that too unadulterated.

This incident has made more wiser.

First moral : Resist at first sign of oppression, which means I should have argued for allowing pornography.

Second Moral : Resist any attempt to undermine egalatrain ethos of our nation.

Third Moral : One of the questions to ask during next interview , do you allow blogs.