Why Bloggers Blog

a) They are dolts

b) They have low self esteem.

c) People hate them.

d) They are pursuing Phds in dead end subjects But I repeat myself.

PS Now excuse me while I watch The Enforcer.

World Of Pain....

Crazy, hilarious.

The Dude: Walter, ya know, it's Smokey, so his toe slipped over the line a little, big deal. It's just a game, man.
Walter Sobchak: Dude, this is a league game, this determines who enters the next round robin. Am I wrong? Am I wrong?
Smokey: Yeah, but I wasn't over. Gimme the marker Dude, I'm marking it 8.
Walter Sobchak: [pulls out a gun] Smokey, my friend, you are entering a world of pain.
The Dude: Walter...
Walter Sobchak: You mark that frame an 8, and you're entering a world of pain.
Smokey: I'm not...
Walter Sobchak: A world of pain.
Smokey: Dude, he's your partner...
Walter Sobchak: [shouting] Has the whole world gone crazy? Am I the only one around here who gives a shit about the rules? Mark it zero!
The Dude: They're calling the cops, put the piece away.
Walter Sobchak: Mark it zero!
[points gun in Smokey's face]
The Dude: Walter...
Walter Sobchak: [shouting] You think I'm fucking around here? Mark it zero!
Smokey: All right, it's fucking zero. Are you happy, you crazy fuck?
Walter Sobchak: ...It's a league game, Smokey.

Go. Watch. Waste your weekend.

PS. Dear Nicolas Cage. You suck.

The sleight of definition

In an earlier post I had wondered whether something like "market can address market failures" made any sense. Ritwik replied here. The gist of his argument (or rather his summary of the libertarian argument), if I understand correctly is, the situations that are deemed to be market failures (owing to not being,I believe the term is, pareto optimal ) are not due to insufficiency of theoretical framework, but either incorrect application of fundamental market concepts (such as the property right*) or the instrument to enforce market don't function as expected. Further, this situation will be resolved once suitable instruments/technologies evolve.

I have two objections to this.

1. The premise that technologies which resolve market failure emerge from market is not historically accurate. Technologies have developed due to war, or where state (or someone other who is not a market agent acting on market impulse) has intervened. Now one can argue that market is the most efficient way for emergence of technology, a line which I am more favorably disposed towards. Nevertheless this argument must be backed by data.

2. The market failure is a concern for policy makers when it effects the public welfare, and therefore the situation must be rectified not at a later date **. To give one example, the pollution is case of externalities, which greatly affects public welfare. Now it is possible that in future new technologies may help resolve this problem, but until that happens it is sensible if state intervenes by creating policies to counter pollution.

* I don't recall specifics, but someone (probably from cartel) argued that water pollution (or something related) can be resolved without state intervention. I am not knowledgeable enough on economics, but I felt that daal mein kuch kaala hai.

** There is a problem that I have observed in libertarian (esp. in cartel) circle among India. This morbid obsession with theory. Now don't get me wrong. Far be from me to dismiss importance of theory, but ultimately market has utility only as long as it addresses the issue. Surely, making a fetish of market is going too far. In fact if it were not for the fact that Jagadguru has copyrighted the term, I would have used free market fundamentalists.

The problem with Federalism

is that that it is, well you know, problematic. (I have ran out of profound things to say)

To illustrate let us take example of USA, which arguably has the most robust tradition of federalism, where Fred Thompson is running as the federalist candidate. Now I do not exaggerate when I say that there is no issue that Thompson would not rather be decided by state. Whether that is gay marriage or abortion, while he professes conservative position, nevertheless his argument is that it is the states which should be deciding upon the issue.

Earlier I believed that this was a cop out, however I have reasons to believe that he might be sincere in his position. Sincerity notwithstanding there is problem with this strict Constitutionalism which is basically position of Fred Thompson.

Given a certain moral, (and social) context the governance is dependent on the soundness of the constitution, therefore strict adherence to constitution makes sense. However the moral considerations and assumptions, on which constitution stands and hence can be said to act as an instrument to achieve the goal implicit in the moral context, are far from settled, in fact, evolving over a period.

To revisit our example , American Constitution is certainly one of the most enlightened document in history. But its writers who proclaimed that freedom of the man is to be derived from God and not the king, had no problem with slavery. A consequence of this was slavery was a state subject. However with the advent of 19th century Industrial North, which was more populous than Agrarian South, took a turn towards strong abolitionism, and demand to abolish institution of slavery became more vociferous .This was resented by South which took it for cultural assault by North using federal government (along with the little matter of protectionist tariff). Ultimately there was a constitutional breakdown and it took a civil war to settle the issue that whether US as a nation could allow slavery.

Here it must be noted that although there are provisions to amend American constitution, the requirements are so stringent that it was impossible to resolve the issue within constitutional framework of the division of rights between federal government and states in view of power dynamics of that time.

Now cut to the present, I am all right if it is state which legislate on issue of gun control, or abortion, or gay marriage*. However to others these issues may present with same moral standing as slavery did to Americans of earlier period. If percentage who is particularly passionate about some issue becomes significant enough, politics may be subjected to same stress.

How federalism can take account of evolution of morality, and even more pertinent how closely national identity is bound to moral assumption is not clear to me.

*There is one line of argument. If abortion or gay marriage is subject to state, than it may create a problem when, for example, some gay couple moves from a state which recognizes gay marriage to one which doesn't. Similarly it is possible for a woman who resides in a state which disallows abortion to abort child in a state which allows abortion. I think it is possible that interstate commerce clause comes into the picture. (Update: Of course there is no love lost for this clause. Is there any community in Orkut, "I hate interstate commerce clause", hmmm)

Update: Jefferson's view on constitution is instructive

"The earth belongs in usufruct to the living," (4) Jefferson wrote to Madison in 1789. "[T]he question Whether one generation of men has a right to bind another, seems never to have been started either on this or our side of the water," even though "it is a question of such consequences as ... [to] place ... among the fundamental principles of every government." (5) Jefferson's answer to the question was no: "We seem not to have perceived that, by the law of nature, one generation is to another as one independent nation to another." (6) Therefore, Jefferson said, "[e]very constitution ... and every law" should "naturally expire[] at the end of 19 years." (7) (Jefferson elaborately calculated, on the basis of life expectancies at the time, that a majority of people twenty-one and older would die within nineteen years and concluded that was the best measure of a generation's life span.) (8) If any law "be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right." (9)

Believing

Strictly speaking those who profess faith in rationalism are no different from the ancient who professed faith in Titans, or Odin. The only difference that can be observed is in results between belief system, and that too is not clear.

Dear Cyber Coolies & Radio Mirchi

It is bill, not cheque. Only Americans call bill, cheque. That is because they are crazy.

ManBearPig Cult*

Carbon Credit == Indulgence

*