May
22
Someone forwarded me a link to this video:
Those who do not wanna watch it, its an investigative report on Chennai private colleges where Taliban-style rules were enforced on the students. There is so much segregation among guys and girls in those colleges that Americans are going to be reminded of the Jim Crow laws era when blacks and whites were made to attend school separately.
This did not come to me as news, I had friends from those universities who told me about these things years ago. I went to a much more liberal private college so all those things came as a big shock to me. I was told that if a guy was found talking to a girl, he was fined(not always through money, but through social service etc etc).
Contrary to the natural reaction(which would be appalling at the horror of these policies), my topic is different. Considering the fact that all the colleges covered were Deemed Universities(they don’t receive any funding from the government, but only have accreditation from the government regarding their course work), that is they are private colleges, it begs the question, would free market serve Taliban and enforce Talibani rules if its participants demanded things that way? Would salons refuse to cut beards? Would private roads refuse to allow cars with female drivers in them? Would a private pond owner refuse to allow Buddhists to drink water from their pond?
The answer to all these questions is a shocking YES. The truth is, for all theoretical purposes, it is clearly possible that the Market would serve those things. There can be salons which refuse to shave men, private roads where women are not allowed to drive, and ponds which do not serve Buddhists, blacks, or the lower caste people. Just like in Chennai Deemed universities do not allow their boys and girls to mix socially.
But to understand why it is so, we must first ask the question, are any of these an act of aggression against anybody’s private property rights? Second question is, if it is not an act of aggression against private property rights of any individual, is it any kind of moral violation of an individual’s right to equality(if not right against his liberty). The answer to the first question is clear, when a salon refuses to employ its employees and its property to be used in a manner they don’t deem fit, when a private road does not deem fit to allow a certain type of individuals to use their property, when a pond owner does not allow the people of a certain religion, race or caste to use his property, none of these actions are a violation of anybody’s private property rights. In fact the whole point of “property” is to restrict non-owners from using the object against the wishes of the owner.
If I can prevent you from entering my house without actually violating your rights in any manner, how come by not allowing you(a black guy) in my saloon a violation of your rights of any kind.
In addition to that, the college cannot beat the students, or physically punish the student in any form for any kind of non-aggressive violation, because the body of the student is his property, irrespective of where it is located. Colleges have full rights to fail such a student or kick him out from the college for violation of their rules.
Second question which I asked earlier whether it is some sort of moralistic violation of an individual’s right to equality, well the answer is, that there is no such thing as universal “right to equality”. I might be a barber who promises right to equality to all my customers, but that does not mean everybody must be obliged to do the same in a free society. A white supremacist should be equally free to serve only white customers.
In a liberal(and free) society there will be standardized label adopted by the companies, claiming to be “equal treatment business establishment”(that is they serve all customers equally), and liberal minded customers would flock to businesses bearing such labels. Just like there will be “Whites Only” labeled restaurants who would shoot in their foot by not serving all the non-white customers, and white liberal customers.
What is the Market’s nature against such discriminatory institutions?
Market forces clearly work against the discriminatory institutions. The road owner refusing to allow women to drive through his road is directing all that traffic to other road owners. Since private roads will operate on subscription basis, families with women drivers will have even their male drivers using the non-discriminatory road networks, clearly damaging the male-drivers only road owner.
Similarly a college institution which pops into Chennai which puts no such Talibani restrictions on their students will attract all sorts of liberal students. The conservative schools must find other ways to actually attract the market. For example in America private catholic schools are more desirable even among the non-Catholics because of their performances. Also if you are a liberal, there is no more liberal school than the public schools in America. So all the Market demand for a Liberal school is crunched in by the public schools, therefore most of the good private schools in America are run by conservative Catholics.
Conclusion
If a newspaper editor refuses to publish your opinions, it is not a violation of your constitutional “freedom of speech” or “first amendment” rights. There is no right to equality on private property, because guaranteeing a right to equality means violating the right to liberty. Only one of these can be upheld at a time.
The market serves its participants. If there are enough number of irrational individuals who wanna follow their own irrational way of life, the market will serve them without prejudice. It may be an issue of rationality vs irrationality, but it is not an issue of Libertarianism.
About the above mentioned Chennai colleges, they will have more to worry about in the coming years when they will realize that Gay and Lesbian rights movement get huge support from their colleges.
Related Posts
1 viewsNo Responses to “Would Free Market serve Taliban?”
Leave a Reply
Brad Says:
May 24th, 2009 at 1:57 amThe mistake that people divorced from a strong moral foundation make (Christianity in my case) is that they are tempted to use economics to control societal behavior.
This means that they want to dictate how and where and when I should spend my money, to drive an initiative of which they approve. This is the tyranny of the majority, and one of the most destructive habits of a democracy. Even worse is the tyranny of the minority, which says that my moral standards need to be subsumed by the interest of the few, simply because they are obnoxious or violent.
Theocracy? Why should a bunch of religious “leaders” dictate my moral conscience? They are just human, and subject to all the moral failings of any human (lust, greed, sloth, perversion, envy).
Republicanism. It’s the best of all systems of government. Free market capitalism, the right to property, and the right to practice your religion in peace, all without government interference, are the supports on which personal freedom is based.
gopi Says:
May 25th, 2009 at 12:12 pmone day i hear a lady saying this site is “all abt rationality & not libertarianism” and the next day i see a post which supports irrational behaviour!!! who’s running de show here? :)
btw, nice post… this is what draws me to this site.
renegade_division Says:
May 25th, 2009 at 3:10 pm@Gopi
Haha! Well it all boils down to the big question, if you are doing something irrational with your life, is it rational for me to stop you from doing it? Or the mere fact that I am forcing my will on you makes my actions irrational?
Unpretentious Diva Says:
May 26th, 2009 at 1:01 pmIt depends on the relation between you two.
As for example, a mother will surely induce her will on her child about what to eat, how much to eat, when to bathe and when to sleep. The child is totally dependent on her will, which on the other hand, is her duty, her accepted duty. To fulfill that duty is surely rational.
She cannot leave/drop the child after giving birth in some guttural ditch to enjoy freedom to death.
Same way, in a business relation too, the partners surely have a pre-attained rational duty/privilege over each other to restrict any dangerous act from the sides of other partner. In case of a debate, where their comes out to be a no-way solution, the partnership breaks.
Unpretentious Diva Says:
May 26th, 2009 at 1:16 pmNow, how does this post support irrationality?
Its always in your own hands. If you know that wearing burqa is off limit to you, you won’t be attending a university enforcing you some middle aged dress code. It is as simple as that. And if you calculate that even though you will have to wear a burqa, yet the output of going to that university will be much more than leaving that option, and you decide to compromise over the question of wearing a burqa for a period, is also your choice. You will obviously make a rational choice, both on terms of your ethics and your economics.
Yet, you cannot be forced. Nor you can be forced to wear western dresses too, its always you to decide what suits you. And this site is to express that which is rational.
gopi Says:
May 28th, 2009 at 12:38 amthis post supports irrationality by allowing a school (which does not allow the boys & girls to mingle with each other) to exist. the management of the school is being highly irrational. In a perfectly rational world, such a school would/should be opposed by everyone including u. However, a libertarian society would not oppose it.
everything we’ve discussed (earlier and here) boils down to this : rational thinkers must be libertarians but libertarians cannot be rational always.
“And this site is to express that which is rational.”
Everything a human does is rational according to him (he wudn’t do it otherwise), but it might not be rational for others - be it wearing sari/burqa, consuming alchohol/drugs, raping women, or opening up schools like these or like u said, going to school like these. Everyone weighs the pros and cons of the same action; but still different ppl have different opinions. So, my question is : Is this site to express that which is rational according to u or what is rational according to me or what is rational according to renegade? These 3 might be different from each other. Or, is it the purpose of this site to discuss these rationalities and come up with only 1 rational decision that is acceptable to all?
Unpretentious Diva Says:
May 28th, 2009 at 1:15 amThis post commits no irrationality because the author realizes that he is NO one to allow or disallow anyone from opening any school of any form. It is for the individuals to decide whether they would opt to study in a school with an irrational set up or not. They may choose not to join that school, they cannot choose to “Disallow” or Ban it, they have no power to do so. The person opening such a school is no slave to those who opposes such schools and ideas.
Rationality says, there is no need to ban anything, that which is not purposeful, will be eliminated by individuals by choice and not by any sort of force to ban things. And this site will criticize each irrational approach.
No one ever said that ban wearing Saris, what was said here is, using modern dresses is more PURPOSIVE, and purposive is synonym of rational.
That Idea itself is irrational. You are too much confused about rationality, i would prefer not to discuss it with you.
Brad Says:
May 28th, 2009 at 6:22 amGopi, to help define rationality in the context of this article, I’d suggest you look at the Wikipedia article on “Rational Choice Theory” here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_choice_theory
“The basic idea of rational choice theory is that patterns of behavior in societies reflect the choices made by individuals as they try to maximize their benefits and minimize their costs.”
Obviously in the example of the Chennai private colleges, it is perceived that there is some benefit to the students or they would choose not to attend. Empirical evidence may not support that premise (I don’t know) but subjective “value” becomes the primary decision driver.
gopi Says:
May 28th, 2009 at 2:54 pm@ diva : spot on - purposive is rational. tight fitting jeans does not serve my purpose in delhi summers. so, it’s rational to wear a dhoti in summers & jeans in winters,right? that’s all i wanted to say.
@ brad : thanks for de link.. it talks abt de concept of ‘utility maximisation’ which is what diva talked abt when she said abt purpose. but utility cannot be quantified - for the same product/service, utility is different for different ppl - and it even changes with time and no: of units consumed (law of diminishing marginal utility).
In the chennai private college case, u r right - subjective (and not objective) value is the primary decision driver. but my question is different - will u support an irrational decision by the college authorities? diva and renegade r quite clear that they will not interfere - neither support nor oppose de decisions. and they will critisize, but allow all people to do all irrational things as long as it’s within their private property.
renegade_division Says:
May 28th, 2009 at 3:00 pmGopi Said:
I think I clearly said that I don’t care whether this viewpoint supports rationality or irrationality, and I said that in view of the debate which happened in the article about “sari”.
My point here was clear, I am not passing value judgments. The site is named “Reason for Liberty” for a specific reason. It is a juncture of rationality and libertarianism. One thing all the authors on this site agree upon and that is that its Libertarian for allowing the colleges to do whatever they want(with respect to their dresses and all).
On the issue of Rationality, then rationality is a moral scale.
Its rational for you to not infringe on other individual’s private property rights. Now the other individual could be committing irrational things, but if you prevent him from committing irrational things by preventing him from using his private property rights then your action became irrational. On the other hand, if you prevent him from committing irrational things by using words, or non-violent means then you are being rational as well as you made him rational.
In simple words, if it is irrational for the college to enforce sexist segregation then you must try to convince them, use non-violent means to make them not do those things. But if you use any kind of force(like use govt, or bring a law suit) then you will be doing irrational things.
It could happen that I think college is doing the rational thing by enforcing a segregation, and it could happen that you think college is doing an rational thing by not forcing segregation, either way we agree on one thing, using any kind of force to enforce my or your viewpoint against the wishes of the college owners would be an irrational thiing.
Compare to that, if its an issue of marital rape, then we all agree that its an irrational thing, even if you think that its perfectly rational for a husband to ask for sex from his wife, if you rape your wife, you must be go to jail, or suffer punishment in some form. Here using force to make you agree to the punishment is not irrational.
I hope that clears up the air about all this Rational vs Libertarian viewpoints on this site.
Unpretentious Diva Says:
May 28th, 2009 at 3:18 pmGopi, stop acting like that. I have already answered it in that previous post.
Nobody wears a dhoti because Delhi is Hot. There’s lot of cool stuff from cotton pants in various style including baggies.
You won’t get 1 in lakh Delhites wearing anything weird like Dhotti.
And jeans is obviously not a rational choice for most of the formal seasons, people do wear formal dresses, yet nobody wears Dhotti, its offish, too much clumsy, and does not support any purpose except that of some pujaris of some temple.
Why are you so hell bent on supporting your wrong ideas about Dhotti?
You can claim an instantaneous vote out anytime in delhi, not even 1 per lakh guys of whole Delhi wears Dhotti. Not even during their marriages. Even in marriages either they prefer Sherwani or special suits.
Unpretentious Diva Says:
May 28th, 2009 at 3:22 pmLol since, Gopi knows no other modern dress other than some tight fitting jeans, hence he wears Dhotti.
What a **** joke.
Gandhi gave up wearing baggies made up of cotton, because those pants were not made by Indian clothmakers. He had no objection against modern dresses and their viability/usability, the problem was, he wanted to help local workers.
Now a days, local workers make much better world class dresses than any group of British workers.
Now a days, Indian native fashion designers innovates and produces much better outfits for all seasons and occasions in much charismatic ways, so only the term is modern, otherwise everything about those modern dresses is Indian. Those modern dresses are current Indian culture.
You wanna avoid it? Don’t wear pants, and always wear Dhottis, let me guess, you even do not know how to tie a dhotti properly.
Unpretentious Diva Says:
May 28th, 2009 at 3:46 pm@renegade
I think I clearly said that I don’t care whether this viewpoint supports rationality or irrationality, and I said that in view of the debate which happened in the article about “sari”.
I do not know why you and gopi are making a fuss about that article.
Anyways, regarding this article, trust me, in a free society, its not possible nor viable for a person to run a school successfully even while restricting and enforcing any sort of dress codes, let alone Talibanese dress codes, that is not properly feasible and obviously beneficial for the students in the specific streams of their education.
As for example, if a college says that during the mechanical engineering classes, while working on machines, it is necessary for students to wear a Khaki shirt and pant so that their dresses may not get ruined by oil etc, and they have to use rubber gloves, most students will readily agree. For a school to run successfully in a free market, it is necessary for the school administration to give importance to the free status of students too. otherwise, economically it won’t be viable for it.
Anyways, you don’t need to nitpick over that article, the issue was better dealt in the previous post http://www.reasonforliberty.com/current-affairs/the-dress-code.html
Now about your post, the simple thing is, any theocratic organization proposing any irrational belief, restriction or ruling, cannot simply make people accept it without using force. That is why Iran uses police and military force to enforce the dress codes. And even after all those brutalities and enforcement for their irrational rules and regulations, people do not follow them, they revolt. As you can see here http://www.reasonforliberty.com/current-affairs/the-dress-code.html
To accept irrational is not in human blood nature, that is why Evolution is the process, entrepreneurship is the way, innovation is the answer and liberty is the aim, liberty to evolve.
Brad Says:
May 28th, 2009 at 9:24 pm@Unpretentious
You said: “its not possible nor viable for a person to run a school successfully even while restricting and enforcing any sort of dress codes”.
Here in the U.S., some of the most successful schools are “prep” and Catholic schools, both of which enforce dress-codes. We also have military academies as well. What’s the purpose? Having a common uniform renders all students “classless” meaning there’s no longer any socioeconomic differentiation. Thus, as is common in our public schools, students who are wealthy and dress in expensive fashion are not segregating themselves from the less fortunate. It also helps to create as sense of commonality or community, which encourages cooperation. Students compete with each other based on academic achievement, vs. who’s the most fashionable.
While Catholic schools are religious institutions, the dress-code is there for practical reasons, not spiritual (unlike the Taliban). And that may be more to the point.
What the Taliban are attempting to enforce is spirituality through behavior modification. Their mandate is to force the world to conform to the will of Allah, the god of Islam. The key word is “force”, and they are willing to use any means necessary or expedient to achieve those goals.
Unpretentious Diva Says:
May 29th, 2009 at 9:07 am@Brad
I said In a free society, its not possible nor viable for a person to run a school successfully even while restricting and enforcing any sort of dress codes, let alone Talibanese dress codes, that is not properly feasible and obviously beneficial for the students in the specific streams of their education.
You mentioned US army schools, they are hugely subsidized and the catholic schools, well they get huge amounts of charity. Economically they are dependent on government subsidies and local/foreign charities.
But what you are missing is, both army schools and catholic schools get proper consumer support freely.
I mentioned IF a school does not respect consumers freedom it will fail. Both Army school and catholic school provide that freedom, even the religious Islamic schools (Madrassa) gets proper consumer support (in India) because they are based on consumer freedom.
Only those students go their who really want to learn Islamic religious manners, only those students go there in Navy private schools like T.S Chanakya (India) who want to have a career in Navy and they then accept the Navy dress too. The agreement is free. And those dress codes are feasible for their respective career options.
That is not so in Afghanistan though, or taliban ruled SWAT. There, if a girl goes to school, she gets a bullet shot at her head.
Now consider this, a student looking for training for cricket, or football, will he agree for a school’s dress code which forces everybody wearing a Priest’s dress?
How can a cricket player play or practice in a priest’s dress? he cannot, its not feasible.
Can Sania Mirza play tennis while wearing a full Hizab and Burqa which is strictly enforced in vast region of pakistan and Afghanistan?
So the issue is of feasibility.
Not all students are forced to study in Madrassas, or catholic schools, or Navy schools, only those who consider such schools feasible for their career options go there, it is their freedom and those schools respect their freedom.
The thing is, the course they teach in Madrassas, or in some catholic schools is not rational. We criticize both. Why won’t we?
We criticize national army and national navy too and we support privatization of security system.
Criticism is different than enforcement.
But now consider case of taliban.
All students are required to study ONLY in Madrassa, all books talking of Evolution, should be burnt, anybook which is not respecting islamic tenents of Allah (or catholic tenents of Bible for a catholic theocratic society) should be burnt, Every girl who refutes and tries to engage with boys should be announced a witch and should be burnt alive in an open marketplace so that she may become a role model for other girls, Any woman going outside without her husband or father as the escort will be raped in the market.
Any home playing some music in a party of family gathering will be attacked andd burnt etc…. can you expect people agreeing for it?
Do you think such institution are viable? Do you think such societies are free?
Then what caused the end of Dark ages? Why did people revolted and opposed the theocracy of Europe? it was not viable that is why it changed.
P.S, Gandhi always wore Dhottis, his ardent student and closest friend Jawahar Lala Nehru never used a Dhotti, he was always an ardent fan of western dresses, obviously made by Indian workers with Indian material. Now in the era of globalization, no one can restrict consumers only to use native material and production, Outsourcing is so common and necessary.
And well, look at Indian Parliament, 90% of representatives of India, the MPs and MLA’s wear modern dresses. That’s how India works.
Nobody opposes Sharad Pawar, or L.K Advani, or Manmohan Singh or Ahluwalia, or A.B Wardhan or Prakash Karat, when they wear suits shirts and pants. Although, if Sonia Gandhi chooses to wear a western Gown for attending a parliament session, things will go awry.
People enjoys the bold and beautiful pictures of Indira Gandhi riding a horse in cowboy suits, or catwalking on Paris fashion shows when she was young, showing her beautiful physique. But when she became PM, she was expected to wear a sari. The thing is, this burdened expectation of collective groups on an Individual just because she is a woman and is holding an official position (governmental or private) is simply irrational. Now some women succumb to this irrational and uncalled expectation and accept it, some women may deny succumbing. Many denies it.
Nobody demanded Kiran Bedi to wear a Khaki Sari while encountering terrorists and killers, when people attack Sania Mirza, for wearing those little sexy dresses on tennis court, why don’t they attack the Army headquarters where the female army personals also wears those western dresses which although are not a part of that so-called Indian culture but are the demand of their situations and are purposive?
Its the induced discrimination against females. It won’t remain for long.