Jan
14
Often when one stresses over liberty, people start suggesting the dangers of extremes.
They claim, we have seen extremes of collective slavery, we may see extremes of individual freedom now and it will not be good.
They agree socialism is bad, they claim capitalism may be bad; hence they suggest the Mixed Economy, as the middle path.
Nicomachean Ethics suggests, “Virtue must have the quality of aiming at the intermediate.”
So are the commenter providing a distinct solution that is incidentally ‘moderate’ while following a wholly rational process of thinking? Or are they just copying a statement without thinking about its implications?
What they suggest, certainly mean that out of the good, bad, and ugly, choose the Bad, as it is the mean of two extremes, the Good and the Ugly.
We cannot generalize the statement by Aristotle as in abstract it is empty, without any meaning. We cannot believe that a middle path will always be good without analyzing and defining the middle choices.
People often suggest the idea of middle path because they simply lack any rational argument supporting their choice of middle path.
Not only that, they just assume that extremes are always wrong as a prejudged notion. They will agree that collectivism is bad, and they will suggest that since opposite of collectivism is Individual freedom, and collectivism is bad, hence Individual freedom will also be bad. Hence, they claim there should be middle ground, that is socialism is proven bad, capitalism is opposite of it hence it will be bad, mixed economy, with complete regulation of government will be good middle path.
Should we always opt for middle ground?
Killing a girl in a gang rape is bad, it is crime, an extreme, is allowing the girl to live free and fearless also bad? So what would be the middle ground? Do not kill the girl, but do not let her make free decisions, exploit her, is it good?
The middle path of mass murdering and peace cannot be good choice. We all know peace is always good irrespective of being extreme opposite of war or mass murdering.
Socialism is a system in which government uses force to tell citizens what to do what not to; Capitalism is that system, which provides the citizen his right to freedom to make choices and decision without any government interventions.
What is Regulated Capitalism, the middle path? It is the system India follows.
Government regulations implies violence against the Individual citizen. If it were not violence, it would be termed a rule of Individual Voluntary Association. The fact that an Indian is a criminal if he avoids taxation, the fact, that an Indian cannot start a business for living if it is not “allowed” by government, the fact that if a doctor opens up a nursing home in a remote village of India, without taking permission from government, it is termed as illegal, the fact that is an Indian make a building in his own acquired land, it will be illegal construction without a licensed plan approved by government, proves that it is not a voluntary institution, but rather a coercive compulsive state backed by force, where neither the Individual can deny participating his wealth in any good, bad or heinous activity by the collective will of government, nor can he deny any subsidy promoting inflation, devaluation of wealth and goods, nor he can make a voluntary choice for the value of his own hard work, government decides it by common minimum wages directives.
Supporting the “Regulated Capitalism” is similar to supporting rape of the girl if she wants to study more, or wants to work, or if she wants to elope with her love against your will.
In between freedom and slavery, there cannot be a middle ground. Slavery is bad and abolishable; freedom is virtue yet to be achieved.
People agree that slavery is wrong, that socialism is wrong. Yet they fear the capitalism, they fear Individualism, they fear freedom, and they suggest further slavery with a little more care.
People agree that Freedom of speech is right, yet they deny freedom to criticize a wrong system or religion saying it is hurting the religious emotions or it is against the popular idea in majority. People agree every individual has freedom to accept or deny a religion, yet they oppose secularism. Against the idea of secularism, of keeping religion out of government policies, they support government promoting all religion equally. Instead of demanding a secularist free state, they opt for the middle path, the path of poly-theocratic-state, they support pseudo-secularism, and thus oppress the idea of secularism, atheism and freedom thoroughly.
Irrespective of all deficiencies and inefficiencies of governmental security system, in order to control crime and terrorism, government enforces laws like TADA, POTA, UAPA, exploiting the freedom of citizens further. On the name of providing security, government announces culling the right of free media and India heads towards state terrorism.
Capitalism is opposite of oppression, it is opposite of slavery, so yes it can be said an extreme as it is freedom, on the other hand, capitalism is neither oppression, nor it is abandonment. Thus, Capitalism acts as the middle path between the oppression and chaos itself. It provides a system of law supporting freedom, providing a way to defend the freedom, and hence avoiding any sort of chaos. On the other hand, socialism is necessarily an extreme as it is oppression, and it is opposite of freedom.
Cruelty is a vice, and opposite of cruelty is peace, love and decency. Both are extreme. Can one say that love is wicked because it is an extreme opposite of cruelty?
Can moderation be justified in all cases? No, it is not right it cannot be justified.
Some actions do not demand a mid-value. Some things imply badness by itself irrespective of being extreme or moderate. Murder is wrong irrespective of the case it is extreme cruel murder, or moderately cruel murder. Poison is vice no matter you take extreme quantity or a little. Similarly, certain things implies goodness, like justice, love, peace, freedom, non-coercion, they are always right irrespective of being extreme. As Capitalism is individual freedom, justice, non-coercion, voluntary arrangement, it is right, and extremism to establish freedom and to defend it, can never be termed as wrong!
Explaining the idea of moderation further, Aristotle said—
“Virtue must have the quality of aiming at the intermediate. But not every action nor every passion admits of a mean; for some have names that already imply badness, e.g., spite, shamelessness, envy, and in the case of actions adultery, theft, murder; for all of these and suchlike things imply by their names that they are themselves bad, and not the excess or deficiencies of them. It is not possible, then, ever to be right with regard to them; one must always be wrong.”
Such is the name of slavery, it is wrong in any sense. Moderate, regulated slavery alias mixed economy, regulated capitalism is as vice as extreme slavery is.
Quoting Ayn Rand:
“There are two sides to every issue. One side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil.”
Laissez-Fairre Free market capitalism is right, communism, socialism, collectivism is wrong, and the Mixed Economy system is Evil.
46 Responses to “The Middle Vice!”
Leave a Reply
Nita Says:
January 14th, 2009 at 2:12 pmGreat write up! Well analysed. I completely agree with you that just because two extremes are bad it doesn’t mean that the midde is good. I think any such thinking is dangerous. Each issue needs to be taken separately. About political systems, now that’s a tough one. I wish I knew the answer. Pure capitalism has its pitfalls and so does pure socialism and the obvious answer should not be a middle ground because the middle ground could just have the bad points of both! So what is the answer then? I think we will come across the answer by accident once we see a country doing it and then we can give it a new name! Because how much ever we theorize, once things are put into practice, the flaws start to make themselves known. And right now at least there seems to be no best way…perhaps the best way is to try all at any given time and see which suits who!
renegade_division Says:
January 14th, 2009 at 6:52 pmWhen you say “Pure Socialism has pitfalls, and so does pure Capitalism”, you don’t really realize the pitfalls of either of them. Lets say a guy tries to say that “fully consensual sex has pitfalls just like rape has pitfalls”, now what kind of guy in his sane minds would say that? Clearly someone who does not understand either of them(or at least partially one of them).
For example tell me what are the pitfalls of pure Socialism according to you, and what are the pitfalls of pure Capitalism according to you?
Please don’t say “Rich gets richer, and poor gets poorer in Capitalism”, because that would be like saying “Good looking guy gets all the girls, and ugly looking guy never gets laid in consensual sex, whereas in a society of rape, all men can equally get laid”.
Take for example the problem of Socialism is not “incentives”, I mean it is one of the problems but it forms a really small part of the major theoretical problem of Socialism. Because incentive problem can be solved through indoctrination, take for example in modern democracies people are indoctrinated to pay taxes, the income tax for highest income bracket($250,000 per year and more) in United States till 1970′s was about 75%. In 1940′s income tax in US was 95%.
So incentives seems to be a very stupid problem Socialism seems to be having, apparently with a lot of indoctrination it can be overcome, so are saying that “Socialism works perfectly on paper”??
This is the thing, if you can define the pitfalls of Socialism(or Capitalism), I will agree with your expert analysis. But the truth is, most people do not know anything about either of them, when they say “oh pure capitalism is as bad as pure socialism”. Capitalism is a society of pure liberty, are you saying that too much of Liberty is bad?
GP Says:
January 14th, 2009 at 7:50 pmI think base of Socialism has helped China very well in achieving remarkable GDP growth as well as showing whole world that national interest comes first rather than Individual freedom and the result is – China went ahead in medal tally supassing US in recently concluded Olympics
(I read somewhere that chinese govt. established a special system which identify and nurture the sporting genious in his/her early childhood and provide them necessary training and funds to turn them into national sport-icons
which in turn benefit the nation) and I think undue importance is being given to the talk of human rights violation in China. I think its just a western propaganda to demoralize and block the growth of china and I think everyone knows what happens when too much freedom/liberty granted with no approrpiate regulations especially to co-orporate world(recent e.g. Satyam,lehman Bro.,AIG,etc.).
So basically – we need to achieve the balance – Appropriate rules/regulations/restrictions are must to make sure noone is misusing the freedom which in turn could effect the whole society both in terms of economy and social values.
Unpretentious Diva Says:
January 14th, 2009 at 9:42 pm@GP
I know you support looting, exploiting and murdering earners. And you do believe human is not worthy to be free.
I know you will always support slavery, rapes and killings. I know you have no knowledge about the extreme poverty and joblessness of China.
I know you have no knowledge about the fact that China does not allow its national media to proliferate facts about china outside its boundaries nor it allows foreign media to cover internal situations.
I know even you do not support free media freedom of expression freedom of speech or any sort of freedom.
Yet I would like to open up a closed window a little for you, so that you may get a chance to “think” out of your anti-human anti-freedom thesis.
China—
China, Labor unrest
Why not to be a rich in China
China struggling for Human Rights
End of China Miracle
China’s worst nightmare, UNEMPLOYMENT
Closing down China factories
China headed for ahard landing
China struggling for democracy
Anyways GP, the article was meant for you too. I know you prefer bad in between good and ugly.
GP Says:
January 14th, 2009 at 9:58 pmAs I said in my post, there is no gain without pain. If you think about national interest first then everything else is just secondary. I can understand ppl cry about no freedom no liberty and Human rights violations in china ..but for me as a country they did quite well despite having problems such as natural disasters, population explosion,free market capitalism. There are no countries in the world who don’t have any probs such as unemployment,labor issues,etc. China too not exception ..but whts important is their ability to come strong and keep improving and i am hopeful that one day dragon will outsmart US.
Anayways, enough abt china ..my intension was just to let u know that communism is not all too bad if u know exactly how to implement it and I think CPC is doin quite well in that regard.
Also, u missed my main point – i..e without regulations u can’t expect free market capitalism to make wonders and bring magic of happiness in everyones lives. coz there is simple rule – too much is always bad . Be it a food, luxury,comforts ( coz they make u mentally unrest or physically unhealthy ) . There shud be always balance required which cannot be possible without rules,regulations and certain restrictions.
Unpretentious Diva Says:
January 14th, 2009 at 10:03 pmAs I said GP you do hate Human. I know you will prefer mass killing rather than allowing freedom.
I know your role model are Hitler, Stalin, Mao, I know you are of the breed who just despise people being happy and more than that, able to decide what there happiness is,.
I know you are a sort of person who consider Himself Lord God Messiah of the masses who will teach them what is happiness, how much to be eaten when to go to loo.
Because according to you in a human theres no mind to take these decisions. And they need some dictator like you, or Hitler or Stalin or Mao or Mugabwe to dictate them when to breath how to breath.
I wonder when you mention China why cannot you mention Zimbabwe too in same line? Cause along with god, dictatorial, anti-human, anti-freedom, you are a coward to face the reality of your own thesis.
One more thing GP, in other thread, which is officially closed, where you mentioned all your rhetorics of spirituality and dumbness, I know you do not want people to think about themselves, because if they are free to think for their profits, their prosperity development and progress, and if they get freedom and strength for defending their right to prosper and progress, how the heck will you and your heroes, Hitler, Stalin, Che Guevara, Mao, Mugabe etc will suck the blood out of people? I know your tricks of spirituality, nationality and all sort of collectivist evils of looting and enslaving individuals.
Why aren’t you mentioning the great nationalists like Balarao Thackrey, Raj Thackrey, etc in same line? Well explained earlier, along with being Lord , God dictator able to tell people how much and when to produce and eat and shit out, you are also a coward.
Dsylexic Says:
January 14th, 2009 at 10:17 pmwtf is a “country that is doing good”. how do you know that.did the ‘country’ speak to you?.sheesh. collectivist
Dsylexic Says:
January 14th, 2009 at 10:19 pmand there we go again: @AIG,Lehman etc. as if these examples of statist corporatism are something to do with free markets. its closer to communism than you can imagine in your collectivist brain
Unpretentious Diva Says:
January 14th, 2009 at 10:25 pmBoth China and Zimbawe are similar, and time will show it. They are similar becos they resides on same principle of socialism/communism and the anti-human, anti-freedom philosophy.
About your personality, Its not my perception based on emotions, It is a reality about you on the grounds of reason.
You are of same sort of people who will always support a Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Mugabe, Che Guevara instead of people living free, clam and peacefully according to their own chosen voluntary decisions. Because basically you even do not consider “us” the minion human enough intelligent to think for our own good and bad.
After all you need to tell/dictate us how to live, you god, the fan of Hitler, Stalin, mao, Che Guevara, Mugabe etc.
Mayuresh Says:
January 15th, 2009 at 3:58 am@writers
Because basically you even do not consider “us” the minion human enough intelligent to think for our own good and bad……….from comment 10.
Please don’t say “Rich gets richer, and poor gets poorer in Capitalism”, because that would be like saying “Good looking guy gets all the girls, and ugly looking guy never gets laid in consensual sex, whereas in a society of rape, all men can equally get laid”………..from comment 2.
Equality is not just a myth, but an irrational myth. Nature itself is unequal.
=======
The last two lines are from some other article.
Nature knows no equality, no inequality. Both are in human minds, because they are human constructs. Nature knows diversity. We cannot compare a bacteria with a lion. Both can kill each other. Lions kill cubs of other lions to get sexual pleasure from the lioness and spread their genes.
Law is a human construct, economy and beauty too are human constructs. Even humanity/anti-humanity/inhumanity are human constructs. Because these are all products of language which is a human construct. Lion is not “cruel” or “anti-social” when it kills cubs. It does not even “kill”, what it does is, it deconstructs, it knows no words. All these words are human constructs.
If economy just wants to copy nature, why laws? Is it possible for humans to have constructs that are all analogous, at least within the limits of their language?
Prax Says:
January 15th, 2009 at 3:59 aminterestg writeup, though i broadly agree i do defer in some points
Capitalism is that system, which provides the citizen his right to freedom to make choices and decision without any government interventions.
well is it ? i disagree
I think it is allowing people to take informed decisions without graft or coersion, of their own free will.
In real terms it is as much about herding people to a choice, because people are too busy living their distracted lives, that they hardly have time to really sit back and ponder…
as the beacon of capitalism Us has been no different thanks to it being held ransom by corporate and-or orthodox christian interests so much so that obama would have not be voted in had it not been the worst recession since the great depression .
do read Rajan.. saving capitalism from capitalists , and see the german film Das Leben der Anderen which shows the paradox beautifully…
Unpretentious Diva Says:
January 15th, 2009 at 4:10 amWell, incidentally, I have read Rajan, and I know he talks foolish.
Anyways, you may start reading Rand, Rothbard, Hazlit, Hayeks Milton and others.
It will provide you better outlook than what Amritya Sen and Rajan.
The thing which you miss is, there can be thousands of illusions, yet human have got brains. He need to use it, that’s the way.
Unpretentious Diva Says:
January 15th, 2009 at 4:12 amIf economy just wants to copy nature, why laws?
I know you never heard of Natural Laws, you never heard of Natural rights too, rights to be earned by a rational mind.
Not surprising.
Vishal Says:
January 15th, 2009 at 7:35 amJust came across this blog today – very interesting stuff… will go through other posts soon.
Capitalism – the way I understand it – does not mean ‘lack of government’. A person is required to follow certain rules and regulations even while building a home in an his/her acquired (private) land — that’s doesn’t mean the country is (as you mentioned) NOT capitalist. That’s because of “externalities” – which can not be ignored even in a capitalist society. Capitalism doesn’t mean ‘lack or absence of government’ (that would be anarchy). Capitalism too, need the presence of government to make sure the rules are followed and laws are not broken. No?
Dsylexic Says:
January 15th, 2009 at 11:26 amThe US is NOT a beacon of capitalism as some are fond of sayong…maybe a 100 years ago. definintely not since 1913 -the year the fed was established.it turned socialist along with russia while masquerading as a capitalistic system
Chirag Says:
January 15th, 2009 at 11:43 am<blockquote>
There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil. – AR
</blockquote>
Hi UD, Aren’t we always taught when we are small kid, even if you deserve something let everyone have a part of it, so we no one gets upset. May be answer is neither socialism or capitalism nor mixed. Capitalism is a failure, Socialism is a failure and mixed is definitely a failure. May be we don’t need any of these, systems at all. May be we are solving a wrong problem from the beginning.
Or we need to clarify the goal, we need welfare or profits, middle way, as you said not healthy for anyone.
Unpretentious Diva Says:
January 15th, 2009 at 1:55 pmChirag, No country ever in History adopted Capitalism ever.
Laissez faire capitalism was never applied ever.
How can you say it is failure?
it is not.
Vaibhav Says:
January 15th, 2009 at 5:55 pmThough I agree with the many examples you have cited for “middle vice”, there can be hundreds of examples where the two extremes are incorrect and the middle path is the optimum alternative. One cannot draw analogies just like that and your analogy drawn for extreme individualism with the examples you have cited is misleading.
About your version of capitalism based on extreme individualism, it has never been implemented. One cannot call it a failure while it has not, but at the same time one cannot call it the right system as well. And as far as I can see, I don’t see any country practically implementing it and if that remains, your version or Ayn Rand’s version of capitalism will only remain good in theories!
So the question comes, do you see any country implementing what you see as capitalism? Perhaps the word “country” itself might sound collectivist to you!
Unpretentious Diva Says:
January 15th, 2009 at 6:14 pmIt is not good to talk about something you know nothing.
Capitalism is not Ayn Rand’s discovery.
One cannot draw analogies just like that and your analogy drawn for extreme individualism with the examples you have cited is misleading.
What analogy? I never gave any analogy. I Just put forward a question, is Slavery right?
I know you will say yes it is.
About examples, such examples are given by you.
And I wonder what is your problem with freedom? Why do you want to loot people and for what?
Do you see any difference between British government and Indian Government?
What is that? Weren’t they providing democracy? infact they made/guided the constitution too for India. So what for there was a freedom struggle?
When someone say Sampoorna Swaraj, what does that mean?
DECENTRALIZATION was the idea of indian leaders (Mahatma Gandhi, Patel etc) too so don;t hide your face under the name of Ayn Rand.
And about country, are you sure it is not collectivism?
And do you believe it is right?
Hitler caused worldwide problems, was it right to punish whole Germans for what Hitler did? Some terrorist attacked on India, how right it will be to attack back on Pakistan and punish whole nation for the wrong-doing of some?
Forget country first ask about family, How rightful it is to punish a child if his father was a thief or rapist who raped his mother and ran away?
The thing is, you cannot punish anyone for the wrong of other person.
And your collectivist nationalist-socialist system exactly does that.
Vaibhav Says:
January 15th, 2009 at 6:29 pmThe idea of capitalism has been existent since a long time and each people have different interpretations of it.
You have your own interpretations which are in the lines of Ayn Rand, which is why I mentioned her name as well.
Is Slavery right? No. Does not following your interpretation of capitalism amount to slavery? No.
My problem with freedom is you overexagerate it and bring it to each and every issue.
Is country a collectivist term? Yes. But I don’t believe ALL collectivist terms are bad, even though I too believe a lot in individual freedom (not like you though who sees individualism in each and every aspect of life!)
I have given my views to some of the questions you posed. Now you can answer a question which I posed. Even you agree that your interpretation of capitalism has never been implemented. Do you feel that it will be implemented anytime?
Vaibhav Says:
January 15th, 2009 at 6:33 pmAlso, if you don’t agree with the collectivist term “country”, what alternative do you propose? As the way I see it, no “country” will adopt your interpretation of capitalism, otherwise it would have been already adopted.
Umm you are wrong there.
On the contrary, UNO’s directives says support Free marketism and abolish government interventionism.
India itself approves it. Mahatma Gandhi Nehru Sardar patel approved Decentralization, process of removing central control and providing freedom to the individuals gradually.
Its nothing new, and india itself has the same dream. The dream has been culled by politicians and ignorant.
Panchayat raj, or Village self-governance is just an example of it.
its a natural rule Entropy increases, freedom increases always.
Unpretentious Diva Says:
January 15th, 2009 at 6:43 pmI am not talking of Ayn Rand, alone.
I am talking of Libertarianism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism
I am talking of John Locke http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_locke
I am talking of Austrian School of Economics. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_School
I am talking of Von Mises http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_von_Mises
If you get on those links, you will understand I am talking of allot more, be it Rothbard, or Milton Friedman.
I am talking of Rockwell, Ron paul, I am talking of Indian libertarians too there are many. http://www.mises.org/
Now about your question, civilization is constant process of evolution.
Was it possible for you if you were there in past before Wright brothers to think about flying in sky? Now we have Airplanes.
Was it possible for India to think anything like democracy and partial freedom some 200 years ago?
Now we have evolved to this much that we are partially free, no feudalism, no kingdom, no fighting within dictators. It was not possible even 150 years ago to think about such situations. But we achieved it.
Civilization is a process of providing privacy for a man from men.
We will certainly achieve freedom.
How and when? time will say, endeavors never stops.
Unpretentious Diva Says:
January 15th, 2009 at 6:50 pmIf one considers making of India with Mauryan empire, then it took 2300 years for Indians, to get freedom against dictatorship, feudalism, kingdoms.
Chandra gupta maurya ruled from 320 BC to 298 BC, and India got freedom against British in 1947.
Thus total 2300 years to get a democratic partial sort of freedom for Indian individuals.
With progressive evolution, development increases. I am sure that from present state of sovereign state to sovereign Individual free society, free market, we will take further less time.
Vaibhav Says:
January 15th, 2009 at 6:58 pmI have already read a lot about libertarianism and capitalism, and I have my own interpretations of it. I consider myself libertarian as well, though in your eyes I might be different!
Only when your interpretation of capitalism is implemented successfully, will it be considered as a right system. So all the best for your endeavours!
Unpretentious Diva Says:
January 15th, 2009 at 7:02 pmYou may call yourself Liberal.
You are certainly not libertarian.
GP Says:
January 15th, 2009 at 7:15 pm@Unpretentious
Who said its capitalist of free-market.? Don’t u read my comments carefully?
And I don’t rant about Thakarey family. U wanted to know my views about them and I mentioned in my comments …as simple as that .
GP Says:
January 15th, 2009 at 7:23 pmAbout making India more competent than america, the only way is Free-Market Capitalism.
About true socialism, you know nothing about socialism.
<<<<<<<Free Market Capitalism will be disaster without proper regulations and control of government. If u think govt. is corrupt and never promots free market capitalism then u need to come up with parallel system which can successfully take over the role of government>>>>>>>>
GP Says:
January 15th, 2009 at 7:32 pmMumbaikars Marathis etc and causing fights between madrasis and marathis or Mumbaikars and Biharis is not wrong, than what is wrong?
If killing of Rahul mahajan is not wrong than what is it?
If Gujrat riots were not wrong, if Opening of Babri Masjid by Rajeev gandhi and than Demolition of it by Advani was not wrong than what was it?
people got killed GP, it was crime against humanity.
<<<<<<<I truely respect individual freedom but that doesn’t mean people shud not follow laws and rules which are meant for welfare of everyone.
As I earlier mentioned so called fights between Maharshtrians and North indians are the result of hatred spread by biased media.
If u talk about killing of Rahul Mahajan – then it wasn’t a cold blooded mruder but
the result of unfortunate circumstances created by himself by taking law and order in hands by endangering public lives.
Now, if same guy had killed many ppl in bus then ppl wud have cried about inefficiency of Mumbai police in handling the situation and maintaining the peace.
Alos, wht was he thinking holding passengers at gun point in bus? …….the point is – govt rules and regulations are means for saftey of its citizens ..u cant defy then and cry foul
when govt. compell u to follow them in the name of freedom???. I respect individual freedom but always remember freedom comes with responsibilities.>>>
Unpretentious Diva Says:
January 15th, 2009 at 7:43 pmAny law which is not based on reason can not do any good.
About Rahul Mahajna, he did not keep hostage of anyone. in the bus, it was he and other police man only when he was killed. you are wrong about it.
But it doesn;t matter, owning a gun cannot be a crime. If honest citizen cannot hold a safety gun than who will save him from criminals? Noone.
Freedom comes with responsibility and government is NOT needed for understanding that responsibility, if allow freedom, person understand it better.
Interventionism of government makes freedom free without any responsibility for some.
its about loot of Individual and his exploitation. He can surely live honestly and peacefully in a free market, but government doesn’t allow him.
About your ideas of competing America China etc, its useless, we cannot divide human with boundaries.
Unpretentious Diva Says:
January 15th, 2009 at 7:45 pmOk GP,
I understand your point of view, and I appreciate it too.
The thing is you are too prejudiced against freedom.
See it is true that NO man be it Hitler or Thackrey can be without any goodness in them.
it is just true that even they had some goodness,
And yes we cannot ignore the good of them. Yet we cannot ignore the wrong too.
And the wrong was their collectivist stand. If grouping up people on name of Mumbaikars Marathis etc and causing fights between madrasis and marathis or Mumbaikars and Biharis is not wrong, than what is wrong?
If killing of Rahul mahajan is not wrong than what is it?
If Gujrat riots were not wrong, if Opening of Babri Masjid by Rajeev gandhi and than Demolition of it by Advani was not wrong than what was it?
people got killed GP, it was crime against humanity.
One should understand the Importance of Individual existence, you or me cannot start killing someone just because he is Muslim or hindu should we?
if you agree that yes we should not, then it shows that you accept that crowd mentality is NOT good, and it seldom causes havoc, we always suffered from it in some way or other.
You also agree that welfare states are a failure (for the same cause of crowd mentality)
You also agree that India is mixed economy state and China is suffering.
You say India should be like china, what you forget that since the economic recession in America, China is also starving.
What you ignore is America is also socialist and not a free-country.
So what you do not agree for?
Do you not agree for the fact that the crime of one should not be exsposed on others?
You say mixed economy is good, and than you name Lehman AIG etc., they are the failures of Mixed economy.,
America is as Mixed economy as China or India is.
Yet American economy is more market oriented than India or China, hence America is richest and most prosperous. China is more free and capitalist than India hence china is richer than India.
The difference between China India and America is, China is closed exploited community, they have attained economic freedom to some extent, more than Indian less than American, but their social freedom is ZERO.
Neither America, nor India nor China are freee all of them are trying to be free.
Now about competition, it is a known fact that more free a country becomes, more rich it gets.
India is example, we were poor at verge of bankruptcy in 1992 we adopted liberalization, now we are getting richer.
These recession and inflation comes through interventionism of government.
Failure of lehman etc is not that big issue BAIL OUT of those corrupt comapnies by GOVERNMENT through tax payers money is BIGGER fraud.
GP Says:
January 15th, 2009 at 7:50 pmYou say mixed economy is good, and than you name Lehman AIG etc., they are the failures of Mixed economy.,
<<<<<<<Again you are mistaken here. I never said mixed economy is good. All I am saying is – U need to keep tigher controls and regulations so that coorporates won’t take undue advantage of freedom granted to them >>>>>>>>>
These recession and inflation comes through interventionism of government.
Failure of lehman etc is not that big issue BAIL OUT of those corrupt comapnies by GOVERNMENT through tax payers money is BIGGER fraud.
<<<<<U forgot that Lehman had declared themselves bakrupt so no bail out package for Lehman bros.
If u talk about AIG(American insurance Group) then its bailout was not just “take this money to save ur ass”, they had to follow US governments laws and regulations too from nowonwards.
See the basic funda of bailout package is – to save the jobs of lots of ppl who are directly or indirectly related with that organisation.
AIG is one of the biggest and oldest insurance gruop in US on which lots of ppl are dependenty.
now tell me from the bottom of your heart..whts wrong if govt. prevented mass unemployement and its ripple ill-effects on economy
from collected money? ..don’t u think bcoz of this decision – many more individuals are benefitted in terms of keeping the employement?
were they not individuals who paid the taxes to US govt. and expect govt. to make use of that tax money to give them new life?
I think if I start thinking from ur point of view then I guess as FM( which i am not) I guess I need to look at below things
1> wht is total tax collection from employees of AIG and those who are not employees of AIG but their services/employement indirectly depends on AIG business
2>I will only grant that much collected tax as bailout package to AIG coz I respect their individual rights of getting that tax money back for their own good (aftrall thats wht ppl expect from govt. i.e. to make use of tax money for their(citizens) wellfare ..isn’t it?
3> I will finally publish these facts and figures so that ppl like =you won’t accuse me that – I am misusing the other tax collectors money.
Do u think its viable solution in such scenario?
I think govt. shud really apply this approach to keep ppl like u from stop blaming govt. for their decision of usage of tax collectors money.
But sadly, our or US govt. looked at tax collection as collected money from citizens of country and not as individuals money.>>>>>>>
Unpretentious Diva Says:
January 15th, 2009 at 7:55 pmGP, we can prove that if controls and regulations are removed, than issues like Satyam, Lehman brothers etc won’t arise.
These frauds and misgivings are because interventionism by government, licensing, control of currency and central banks, and all other economic sector issues.
There is a article about economic meltdown, if you read it, you will understand what i am talking of.
The reality of nature is, as much as one follows freedom, he gets natural. You should try to understand it. Forcible regulations always causes corruption.
Free flowing ricer is always pure, stagnant water gets putrified and impure.
Vaibhav Says:
January 15th, 2009 at 9:31 pmLibertarianism is a very wide term with different schools of thought as you can see in the wikipedia link as well. It can accomodate a lot of principles in its gamut and differences of opinion exist amonst libertarians as well. Same goes with liberalism. The meaning and importance given to individual freedom is also different with different people. I would like to tell you that even I am against government intervention in most areas. And the main essence of libertarianism is opposition to interventionism, though the extent of opposition can be different with different people.
In fact classical liberalism and libertarianism are similar (though not exactly the same). But if we go deeper, you are correct. I am more of a classical liberal than libertarian (as I do support intervention in some areas). Now some of the people that you mentioned like Milton Friedman and Mises, were they more of libertarians or classical liberals? You would know that Mises wasn’t opposed to compulsory taxation in the strictest form. He was in fact even in favour of conscription (I am personally against it) which I believe would be against libertarian principles. It is very difficult to demarcate here is where liberalism ends and libertarianism begins. Though personally as you said, I don’t favour total libertarianism which will push me towards liberalism. In fact you had commented in my blog about Adam Smith. I agree with him on many places where he sees government intervention is required.
deadmanoncampus Says:
January 15th, 2009 at 9:34 pmGP,
You have said that Socialism has helped China achieved a high GDP growth rate.In the first
place,China is not a socialistic country.Socialism is a society in which all the property is
owned by the Government.Is that the case? In the second place,GDP statistics is not a
measure of the wealth of a nation.The very term GDP is wrong.One can’t measure the wealth of
a nation in any such manner.The attempts to measure wealth in that manner is childhish
dilettantism.It is obvious that if a good is available in excess,it’s price come down and
would approach zero if it is abundantltly available as air.Wouldn;t the National Income get
to zero if all goods are easily available as air? In China,a lot many websites which promote
individual liberty are banned including that of Lysander Spooner.At whose expense is
children given necessary training in the childhood? Shouldn’t such acts by Government mean
that some children whom the government decides to be geniuses are given special training at
the expense of other children who might be smarter in other regards? Is it fair to tax some
for the benefit of others? If such training benefits the society,why don’t people pay for it
voluntarily? Don’t be ridiculous. No one is of the opinion that there shouldn’t be
rules.There is no need for a government to impose rules and regulations.In an anarcho
Capitalist society,there would be private courts and defense agencies.Market is self
regulating.”Freedom come is responsibility” if an oft-repeated bromide.We don’t have any
responsibilities other than to respect the personal freedom of others.Why should we care
about the national interest? A nation or society is only a collection of individuals.To say
that national interest takes precedence over the interests of individuals,it would mean that
the rights of some individuals take precedence over the rights of others.Nothig can be more
evil or immoral than that.Communism is bad no matter how people implement it.A communist society can’t economically calculate due to its lack of pricing mechanism and profit motive.Property can’t nationalized without reducing incentives to produce and initiating force against people, and initiating force is wrong.It is stupid to think that Government can regulate the market.Market is a very complex process.It is self regulating.If some people commit crimes they will be punished by private courts and defense agencies.There is no need for a government to do that.If people are corrupt and they need to be regulated,then it would mean that government employees too are corrupt and they can’t be trusted to regulate people.
GP Says:
January 16th, 2009 at 1:27 pm@Unpretentious
1>I think you havent read / seen news about Rahul raj correctly. The police warned him twice or thrice to surrender to which he replied with shooting them back
and he was shot dead in reply. Also, it was a hostage situation in fact police were able to take out passengers safely before he was shot down.
Also what kind of individual freedom he was trying to achieve by holding passengers at gun point..endangering innocent ppl lives?..he was planning to Kill Raj thakre?
thats what u call individual freedom and right to hold gun?..but lets forget abt such maniacs they don’t really worth for such discussion.
2>Your theory of Satyam , AIG scams have had not happened if there were no restrictions or regulatory controls from governement is really childish.
In fact its result of lack of regulatory controls on undue risks being taken by their top bosses and Mgmt. for higher revenues also they failed to perceive the ill-effects of their decisions
in longer term. See I do agree there are certain flaws in mix economy but that doesn’t mean its complete failure.
We need to come up with plan,ideas and new rules which can prevent these co-orporate flaws and inherent loop holes in
certain laws and regulations which promotes such kind of scams and frauds.Now if you completely decided that flaws in mix economy cannnot be corrected and “free market capitalistic” societies
( I won’t term it as country coz for u that is again a collectivist term) can only be the perfect solution to all the current issues and problems
then lets start thinking from your point of view -
@Writers
Those who are supporters of “Free Market Capitalism” can you plz answer my few queries?
1>What will be the role of government in “free Market Capitalistic” society? or there won’t be any system like government in your theory?
2>Are there any systems in your new theory which are controlled by government alone and haven’t been subjected to privatisation?
3> I am yet to get an answer to my earlier posts which I am still expecting one of you to reply on -
I think if I start thinking from ur point of view then I guess as FM( which i am not) I guess will look at below things
1> wht is total tax collection from employees of AIG/Satyam and those who are not employees of AIG but their services/employement indirectly depends on AIG business
2>I will only grant that much collected tax as bailout package to AIG coz I respect their individual rights of getting that tax money back for their own good (aftrall thats wht ppl expect from govt. i.e. to make use of tax money for their(citizens) wellfare ..isn’t it?
3> I will finally publish these facts and figures so that ppl like =you won’t accuse me that – I am misusing the other tax collectors money.
Coz as a govt. I am justing giving ppl their money back in case of their crisis and that too with full facts and figures
Same will be applied for the decision of “Free education to public and private schools”
Do u think its viable solution to address your complaints in current mix economy? …or there are any other complaints?
Destination Infinity Says:
January 18th, 2009 at 12:58 amThis is the only site, where the comments are the basis for a new post! A good idea, though!
When I had commented I had also mentioned that the excesses are both good and bad. If you don’t look at the negativities of a system (Like free market capitalism) and just want to impliment it on the basis of your belief, it may not end up being even moderately successful. In fact, you need to analyze what could go wrong with a system like free market capitalism with equal zest as you analyse the failures of the govt.intervention and middle path. If you say that free market capitalism is the best system which does not have any shortcoming’s at all, and people cannot exploit such a system, what ever they do – it is not an analysis. It is called assumption.
The examples provided to prove the point, are pathetic. But the arguments were good. The commenters, who have argued against the point in this post, have done enough justice but when replying, I feel that there is a huge degree of imposition of opinions by the author(s).
Destination Infinity
Unpretentious Diva Says:
January 18th, 2009 at 1:28 amDestination Infinity, Plato concluded that a perfect circle cannot be made because it doesn’t exist in nature.
Any child can make a perfect circle now. But nobody says Capitalism is perfect system. It can though be proved that Capitalism is best amongst the three. It is good, mixed economy is bad, and socialism is ugly.
The examples are perfect, but your rhetoric was wrong.
Mayuresh Says:
January 23rd, 2009 at 1:56 amThe examples are perfect. Any child can make a perfect circle now.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Perfection is an illusion.
Unpretentious Diva Says:
January 23rd, 2009 at 2:00 amyep, your argument against freedom is just an illusion.
Mayuresh Says:
January 23rd, 2009 at 2:22 amyep, your argument against freedom is just an illusion.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
will you point out a single sentence against freedom?
Unpretentious Diva Says:
January 23rd, 2009 at 2:31 amlol.
Your idea of forcing people to give their hard earned money to teach kids of others itself is against freedom.
Supporting compulsory tax is against freedom because Taxes are Evil, Taxes means Slavery, Taxes are Robbery. Taxes are Destructive they harm citizen, poor middle class rich, all.
http://www.reasonforliberty.com/reason/what-really-are-taxes.html
if a person puts up an idea of teaching poor orphan kids, and asks for voluntary contribution, it is valid genuine demand. people are free to donate or NOT to donate.
If a person argues that government should force people and loot their money to teach kids of other people, it is loot.
Mayuresh Says:
January 23rd, 2009 at 11:00 amThese are not my ideas, neither I supported them.
Mayuresh Says:
January 23rd, 2009 at 11:24 amRegarding Social Issues ( Free education, economy etc.) I am convinced by what you say.
it is true that instead of forcibly making people impotent like Sanjay Gandhi tried to do in India, it is always better to try to be progressive. Killing ourselves through hunger, starvation and socialistic, communistic dictatorship cannot be the solution.
I fully agree with you.
Bill Says:
January 23rd, 2009 at 8:47 pmNice writeup, and nice explanation of the flaws of mixed economy.
Why there are Wars, Terrorists and Militants | Reason for Liberty Says:
February 2nd, 2009 at 11:56 am[...] Answer lies in the mysteries of Military Keynesianism.[1] Keynesian economics is what we call as Mixed economics or government controlled economy. According to Keynesian economics[2] the state should encourage economic growth and perk up [...]
Mixed Economy or Interventionism | Reason for Liberty Says:
October 24th, 2009 at 9:40 am[...] coercion, Freedom Versus Egalitarianism [↩]What really are Taxes, Reason for Liberty [↩]Laissez-Fairre Free market capitalism is right, communism, socialism, collectivism is wrong, and the…, The Middle Vice! [...]