Comments on: Vision and Method http://www.yazadjal.com/2004/03/12/vision-and-method/ Fri, 04 Jul 2008 19:29:42 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.1 by: ripples http://www.yazadjal.com/2004/03/12/vision-and-method/#comment-873 Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.yazadjal.com/2004/03/12/vision-and-method/#comment-873 When I took the quizzes linked from your post, I started getting many questions about pure liberatian views, this post answers a few questions, though I still have a lot unanswered. When I took the quizzes linked from your post, I started getting many questions about pure liberatian views, this post answers a few questions, though I still have a lot unanswered.

]]> by: Sathish http://www.yazadjal.com/2004/03/12/vision-and-method/#comment-874 Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.yazadjal.com/2004/03/12/vision-and-method/#comment-874 I got 58 in libertarian purity test, which makes me a medium core libertarian. If I had taken this test some one year earlier, I am sure I would have got more than 130! I think, as you intellectually grow up, you become more leaned towards the center. Your 147 makes me believe that your idealogy has a lot of scope for change. Did you read Ayn Rand recently? :-) People who are completely libertarian live in an utopia. They believe that everybody is as knowledgeable and blessed as they are. Ayn Rand's ideals are obviously not suited to a society like ours. She is an extreme dream. I wonder how people manage to still live in their dreams when so much is happening outside. Come down to the reality buddy. World outside is a lot more evil than you think. I got 58 in libertarian purity test, which makes me a medium core libertarian. If I had taken this test some one year earlier, I am sure I would have got more than 130!
I think, as you intellectually grow up, you become more leaned towards the center. Your 147 makes me believe that your idealogy has a lot of scope for change. Did you read Ayn Rand recently? :-)
People who are completely libertarian live in an utopia. They believe that everybody is as knowledgeable and blessed as they are. Ayn Rand’s ideals are obviously not suited to a society like ours. She is an extreme dream. I wonder how people manage to still live in their dreams when so much is happening outside. Come down to the reality buddy. World outside is a lot more evil than you think.

]]> by: Sathish http://www.yazadjal.com/2004/03/12/vision-and-method/#comment-875 Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.yazadjal.com/2004/03/12/vision-and-method/#comment-875 Sorry if the earlier comment sounds rude, that was pretty much a knee-jerk reaction. But I meant what I said, though would have preferred to put it in a 'milder tone'. ;-) Sorry if the earlier comment sounds rude, that was pretty much a knee-jerk reaction. But I meant what I said, though would have preferred to put it in a ‘milder tone’. ;-)

]]> by: Yazad http://www.yazadjal.com/2004/03/12/vision-and-method/#comment-876 Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.yazadjal.com/2004/03/12/vision-and-method/#comment-876 I first read Ayn Rand more than 15 years back. Why does having an extreme view equate to being intellectually immature? You're saying that unless you're a centrist, you're immature. Sorry, I disagree. This does not mean that I ignore what I see around me or think that just because I have a certain dream, the world owes it to me to make my dream a reality. It's quite possible that I might never see the anarch-capitalist libertarianism of my vision. So what? At least I don't have to water down my ideals for shifting sands. And Sathish, feel free to be rude. Don't worry. I know how to give it back ;-) I first read Ayn Rand more than 15 years back. Why does having an extreme view equate to being intellectually immature? You’re saying that unless you’re a centrist, you’re immature. Sorry, I disagree.

This does not mean that I ignore what I see around me or think that just because I have a certain dream, the world owes it to me to make my dream a reality. It’s quite possible that I might never see the anarch-capitalist libertarianism of my vision. So what? At least I don’t have to water down my ideals for shifting sands.

And Sathish, feel free to be rude. Don’t worry. I know how to give it back ;-)

]]> by: Sathish http://www.yazadjal.com/2004/03/12/vision-and-method/#comment-877 Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.yazadjal.com/2004/03/12/vision-and-method/#comment-877 Perfect libertarianism would work in practice if everyone is fully educated and are capable of taking individual decisions and stand by it. When in poverty and illiteracy, how can people be trusted to act for their own good? Till the time they are 'empowered' isn't it better to have a slightly big government to care for them? :-) Perfect libertarianism would work in practice if everyone is fully educated and are capable of taking individual decisions and stand by it. When in poverty and illiteracy, how can people be trusted to act for their own good? Till the time they are ‘empowered’ isn’t it better to have a slightly big government to care for them? :-)

]]> by: Yazad http://www.yazadjal.com/2004/03/12/vision-and-method/#comment-878 Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.yazadjal.com/2004/03/12/vision-and-method/#comment-878 Well, we've had this big government in India for quite some time and I see no great reduction in poverty or illiteracy. However, when the govt. liberalised (to a small extent in 1991), we saw a much greater reduction in both poverty and illiteracy in the ensuing 10 years than in the previous 40. Not enough, but it leads me to infer that less govt is better. There are many many more examples. "Empowerement" is a fancy term. Politicians mouth it to empower only themselves. It's liberty and freedom that I'm interested in. Not power. If you'd scroll down, you'd see <a href="http://www.yazadjal.com/mt/archives/000268.html" rel="nofollow">this</a> quote by C. S. Lewis. Read it if you haven't already. Well, we’ve had this big government in India for quite some time and I see no great reduction in poverty or illiteracy.

However, when the govt. liberalised (to a small extent in 1991), we saw a much greater reduction in both poverty and illiteracy in the ensuing 10 years than in the previous 40. Not enough, but it leads me to infer that less govt is better. There are many many more examples.

“Empowerement” is a fancy term. Politicians mouth it to empower only themselves. It’s liberty and freedom that I’m interested in. Not power. If you’d scroll down, you’d see this quote by C. S. Lewis. Read it if you haven’t already.

]]> by: Sathish http://www.yazadjal.com/2004/03/12/vision-and-method/#comment-879 Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.yazadjal.com/2004/03/12/vision-and-method/#comment-879 True. India's big government is bloated beyond boundaries. But your 147 tells me that you should have answered no government, not even in health care and education, just a guess. Did you say no taxation? I really dont know how much government you want. I need government in social sectors atleast, till the human capability shortfall among the populace is removed. I had a similar discussion with Gaurav Sabnis a few weeks back. One more, my early is very similar to yours. :-) True. India’s big government is bloated beyond boundaries. But your 147 tells me that you should have answered no government, not even in health care and education, just a guess. Did you say no taxation?
I really dont know how much government you want. I need government in social sectors atleast, till the human capability shortfall among the populace is removed. I had a similar discussion with Gaurav Sabnis a few weeks back.
One more, my early is very similar to yours. :-)

]]> by: Yazad http://www.yazadjal.com/2004/03/12/vision-and-method/#comment-880 Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.yazadjal.com/2004/03/12/vision-and-method/#comment-880 A long post on my anarcho-capitalist-libertarian leanings is coming soon. Wait till then. As a teaser, note that we've had govt. in social sectors for quite long. What's the result been? Those aspects of education or healthcare in India that are world class are by and large in the private sector. You might ask, "but can the poor afford it?" Let me answer that in length later. In brief, the poor can, and they do. Ever noticed how much tax the poor pay? In India only 20% of tax revenues are from direct tax (income tax, corporate tax). 80% is from indirect taxes like sales tax and excise. Ever seen a matchbox? There's this little paper thingy stuck on one end. It's an excise duty stamp. The poor spend a much higher percentage of their income on consmption, paying taxes for everything they buy. Well if they are allowed to save on this tax, we might just the Indian tiger really roar. A long post on my anarcho-capitalist-libertarian leanings is coming soon. Wait till then.

As a teaser, note that we’ve had govt. in social sectors for quite long. What’s the result been? Those aspects of education or healthcare in India that are world class are by and large in the private sector.

You might ask, “but can the poor afford it?” Let me answer that in length later. In brief, the poor can, and they do. Ever noticed how much tax the poor pay? In India only 20% of tax revenues are from direct tax (income tax, corporate tax). 80% is from indirect taxes like sales tax and excise. Ever seen a matchbox? There’s this little paper thingy stuck on one end. It’s an excise duty stamp. The poor spend a much higher percentage of their income on consmption, paying taxes for everything they buy. Well if they are allowed to save on this tax, we might just the Indian tiger really roar.

]]> by: Ravages http://www.yazadjal.com/2004/03/12/vision-and-method/#comment-881 Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.yazadjal.com/2004/03/12/vision-and-method/#comment-881 I agree with Yazad. Just because the poor aren't "empowered" doesnt mean the Government can exist in its rich trappings and continue to be corrupt and levy taxes on us. I dint quite get it right. Let me try. The existance of the poor is not justification of stupidly large governmental spendings. In fact, the poor continue to be poor only because of the existance of the government, if you ask me. Throw them on their feet and ask them to fend for themselves, I am sure the poor wouldnt complain, they would go out an achieve. Because there is a safety met, because there is the government that will fuel their existance, they continue to be poor. I am sounding very authoritative, but trust me, I am not. I agree with Yazad. Just because the poor aren’t “empowered” doesnt mean the Government can exist in its rich trappings and continue to be corrupt and levy taxes on us.
I dint quite get it right. Let me try. The existance of the poor is not justification of stupidly large governmental spendings.
In fact, the poor continue to be poor only because of the existance of the government, if you ask me.
Throw them on their feet and ask them to fend for themselves, I am sure the poor wouldnt complain, they would go out an achieve. Because there is a safety met, because there is the government that will fuel their existance, they continue to be poor.
I am sounding very authoritative, but trust me, I am not.

]]> by: Sathish http://www.yazadjal.com/2004/03/12/vision-and-method/#comment-882 Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.yazadjal.com/2004/03/12/vision-and-method/#comment-882 Of course, a government can never subsitute a market. The success of markets in resource allocation is widely researched and known. And, it is also true that with the kind of government we have had, disillusionment with it is highly justified and deserved. What I said, and again repeat is that, there are certain basic assumptions that are necessary for the market system to succeed. Like, 1. Large number of small players and no market power for any entity 2. No information asymmetry 3. No entry and exit barriers and so on. Here, there are certain sectors, like primary education for instance where these assumptions don't hold. As an example, since there is a huge quality differential among free and paid primary schooling, the poor face an entry barrier to institutions like IIMs. So human resources won't be allocated properly, if IIMs are left to market forces. Hence government should make reservations for poor in IIMs as necessary, only till the time when quality free K12+ schooling is made available to all. A government is a necessary evil. Of course, a government can never subsitute a market. The success of markets in resource allocation is widely researched and known. And, it is also true that with the kind of government we have had, disillusionment with it is highly justified and deserved.
What I said, and again repeat is that, there are certain basic assumptions that are necessary for the market system to succeed. Like,
1. Large number of small players and no market power for any entity
2. No information asymmetry
3. No entry and exit barriers and so on.
Here, there are certain sectors, like primary education for instance where these assumptions don’t hold.
As an example, since there is a huge quality differential among free and paid primary schooling, the poor face an entry barrier to institutions like IIMs. So human resources won’t be allocated properly, if IIMs are left to market forces. Hence government should make reservations for poor in IIMs as necessary, only till the time when quality free K12+ schooling is made available to all. A government is a necessary evil.

]]>