Fisking Jivha
Published by Yazad Jal April 17th, 2004 in LibertarianJivha doesn’t like Gmail. Worse, he doesn’t like suggestions people make to people who don’t like Gmail. So Jivha goes off on a rant. I’m going to fisk the rant and will leave the Gmail details to others.
Don’t like the fact that lax gun control coupled with high-calibre/assault-style weapons are killing innocent people? Here’s a wild idea: Don’t use it.
The premise is false. Stringent gun control in the UK and Australia has not stopped gun related violence (it’s actually increased). Switzerland has no gun control, loads of “assualt weapons”, actually encourages citizens to keep weapons and has one of the lowest homicide rates. I have much more to be say about this topic. I’ll keep it for another post.
Worried that giant corporates are secretly or not so secretly rewarding their CEOs with multi-million dollar packages while workers get the short end of the stick? Here’s a wild idea: Don’t use their products.
Not really wild. The idea is moderate. Now are you ranting against the “terrible inequality” where the CEO earns 50 times as much as a janitor? (I hope not, cause I think that you’re more sensible than a communist basket case!)
Or (what I assume) is your rant directed against embezzelement? CEOs and boards cheating employees / shareholders a la Enron? In that case, the idea is ineffective. Get the cheats thrown in jail!
Worried that right-wing politicians and groups are murdering and raping innocent people? Here’s a wild idea: Don’t vote for them.
Wild? The idea is positively mild. A truly wild idea would be to round up Muderous Modi and his ilk and shoot them in public. But then we nice libertarians like stuff called “the rule of law” — so keep hammering Modi with lawsuits. Civil, criminal, the works. Get him and everybody responsible to pay. And of course, don’t vote for him or those supporting him.
Worried that the US army is killing hundreds of civilians in Iraq in a false war created by a liar president? Here’s a wild idea: Don’t enrol in the US army.
The premise is a bit confusing, but I’ll go along with it for your sake. Well, protest against the US military. And the politics that supports it. And if you’re in the US, don’t join the army.
The confusing part is that I think Iraq is better off under Bush dictatorship than it was under Saddam dictatorship. Doesn’t condone dictatorship, just a reality check.
Worried that corruption is rife in our entire political system? Here’s a wild idea: Don’t vote.
Here I, well, agree (to some extent). If you must vote in a corrupt country, vote with your feet (like so many Indians have done).
But the wild idea to fight corruption is to fight it in-between elections. Everyone yakks about good governance 6 months before an election. The time to fight corruption is not just then, but ALL the time. If you must start during the election tamasha time, at least don’t stop once the new government is in. Keep the fight on. Ignore things like “new government honeymoon period”.
Worried that you could get roughed up by state-backed goons in Gujarat and Madhya Pradesh if you speak against ‘Hindutva’? Here’s a wild idea: Don’t visit the states.
Don’t go there as a tourist. Don’t go there to do business. Don’t take up a job with firms in those states. If a lot of people do that, the boycott will hurt. But do go there to exercise your vocal chords. Hey, fighting for freedom isn’t always easy. Sometimes we have to carry that fight to the “enemy camp”.
Worried that newspapers like the Slimes of India are dumbing down entire nations and generations with their pseudo-porn show? Here’s a wild idea: Don’t buy the paper.
Ever heard of the term “bad publicity is better than no publicity”? You give the Times enough publicity. I think there are far worse things to focus on (some rightly stated above by you). Jivha, the wild idea here is ignore the damn paper. Don’t talk about it. Don’t make smart-alecky terms like Slimes of India for it. Don’t link to it or google bomb it. Instead promote alternatives. I’m sure there are many newspapers and magazines worthy of praise.
But can we expect a better world on the basis of aggregated individual choices?
Any other method involves dictatorship to some extent. As a teaser, note that voting is an individual choice. Aggregating votes is the method we use to select a government.
Sometimes I wonder if libertarians overestimate the power and rationality of one individual
Libertarians are not in the least bit concerned about the power and rationality of one individual. Monarchists and dictators are. Libertarians are concerned about ALL individuals. You’re confusing individualism with atomism.
42 Responses to “Fisking Jivha”
- 1 Trackback on Apr 19th, 2004 at 8:49 am
- 2 Trackback on Apr 20th, 2004 at 3:27 pm
- 3 Trackback on Apr 28th, 2004 at 12:17 am
I found Jivha’s post on Gmail to be quite snobbish.
Yazad,
I do not think voting with one’s feet is a useful response. It undermines democracy by allowing potential discards to come to power: the better response is to select the ‘least bad’ candidate and walk out of the polling booth holding your nose.
By your own argument, you could have merely ignored Jivha’s rants! Of course, I dont dispute much of what you have to say.
Niraj, That’s a comment to make to Jivha on his blog directly.
Anand, I have a higher opinion of Jivha than what he has of the Times of India. That’s why I choose not to ignore him. I do agree with him often (disagree just as often too!)
Nitin, In what way is simply staying in the country stopping potential discards from winning elections? The only way is if you stay in the country AND stand for elections.
No not by Yazad’s argument. By Jivha’s argument we could have ignored Jivha’s rants.
It is a common error to make. Just because we don’t want the government to intervene using its powers of coercion does not mean that individuals should not act using their wallets and their voices. In fact, we have a moral obligation to act. (but of course, not a legal obligation)
My comment was a response to Anand of course.
Yazad,
By not voting you are not allowing a candidate chosen by a majority to win, but allowing others to choose the most desirable from a pool of what you think is full of undesirable candidates. This means that (a) a candidate you consider undesirable is getting elected (b) you are leaving the least undesirability choice to someone else.
Given who you are (hopefully not a member of ‘a vote bank’) its all the more important for you to pick the least undesirable. [If the field was full of equally desirable candidates, you need not have voted]
I dont think its necessary for you to stand for elections to do yout bit. Voting right is.
Yazad,
Tell me what kind of a policy is suited for India now. Would a libertarian solution for issues work for a country like us?
One example - If marijuana is legalised and is made available in all shops, just like cigarettes - will it make you more happier, coz the country is becoming more libertarian?
In a democracy, state represents the collective voice of its citizens. So state power and regulations by the state - are just like self-regulations imposed on us by ourselves.
Am I being unlibertarianistic if I control myself and abstain from alcohol. Similarly if the US Govt. decides to ban GMail it is just a self-regulating activity done for its own good. Isn’t it?
Please enlighten me.
“Switzerland has no gun control, loads of “assualt weapons”, actually encourages citizens to keep weapons and has one of the lowest homicide rates. I have much more to be say about this topic. I’ll keep it for another post.”
Yazad you are clearly distorting the facts here. The reason why there are so many assault weapons in Switzerland is because every male between the ages of 21-32 HAS TO (NO CHOICE) to enroll in the Swiss Army. As you know (or may not) Switzerland does not maintain a standing army and hence each male is REQUIRED BY LAW to keep a M-57 Assault rifle and 24 rounds of ammunition in his residence at all times. I’d hardly hold Switzerland up as a shining libertarian example here - it’s not that they have a right to bear arms but are REQUIRED to bare arms and if analyzed morally - forcing somebody to carry a weapon is as bad as not allowing somebody to carry a weapon - all coercion is bad as you yourself have so often said.
Ck, I withdraw the Switzerland statement. I was wrong that Switzerland has no gun control. More on Switzerland and guns.
Yes, there is a fine line between “encourage” and “be required to.” You’re right that force plays no role in libertarianism and thus being required to keep guns by force is not what I reccommend.
However, the point is that allowing people to keep guns actually reduces crime. As I said, more on that later.
But CK, we libertarians will not want to hold up Switzerland as a model state. But nonetheless doesn’t it question the argument that more guns lead to more crime? Unless someone can prove that being legally obliged to carry a gun makes you non-violent, that is…
Sathish,
I don’t think your body is a democratic republic. Your brain decides what is good for it. If God forbid, you develop gangrene in one of your limbs, I am sure your brain will sign the consent note to cut it off without so much as consulting your leg. I don’t think you wish to extend the analogy between your body and your country too far. Are you willing, to, say agree to the massacre of an entire community because the current brains of the country decide that they are a cancer to the body politic?
Similarly if the US Govt. decides to ban GMail it is just a self-regulating activity done for its own good. Isn’t it?
No. Not at all.
Unless restricting free trade is somehow in the “good” of that country. Google isn’t manufacturing narcotics, dude. It’s offering a free email service.
Ravikiran,
Is it really me who is taking the human body: political system analogy too far? Human body is an atomic entity in a political system. Each cell is not a rational thinking citizen of the body nation! So the gangrene example is irrelevant, isnt it?
Libertarianism doesn’t guarantee right of food, clothing and shelter for everybody. If after 5000 years of civilized existence if we aren’t able to provide, or if we haven’t realised that we have to provide - for these fundamental needs, then what good is that policy?
Sathish, for a theoretical view, here’s Lysander Spooner’s No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority
It was written over a century ago and does look exclusively at the US, but the main points and ideals are universal.
For the practical refutation of your statement “state represents the collective voice of its citizens” look out for my post soon!
I wonder if adherence to one single philosophy is good at all. Does it not follow this sequence?
There is this situation A
Q’s solution, SA, is just great
There is this situation B
Q’s solution for this, SB, is great too
There is this situation C
Q’s solution for this, SC, is great too
So Q has great solutions
I am a Qian
So this is the way I will approach any problem: What would a Qian think?
Dont you think this is the way people who are devoted to either a political or economic philosophy think. For a communist, the solution to all problems is to bring it under government control. And for a libertarian, the solution to all problems is to take it out of government control.
But, really, dont you think some problems need a dose of government? Even capitalism needs some kind of govt intervention. In saving capitalism from capitalists, Raghuram G Rajan and Luigi Zingales have argued against the idea that free markets operate best when government is absent.
His arguments reminded me of what a tamil poet and nationalist Bharatiyar warned in 1930s. He said, in one of the essays (from a collection edited by jayakanthan & published by sahitya akademy) that unless we as a society do something about economic inequality and poverty, people will start thinking that communism is a better option.
Raghuram Rajan himself suggests safety nets by government to ensure that free markety capitalism lives on.
So Sathish, do you have a system that will ensure that the analogy to the human body will stop at exactly the point you want it to?
I am confused about something, so I hope somebody will clarify my doubts.
You say that you don’t want either the state or the church/religious institution to limit or interfere in an individual’s choices or life (which is a cool principle, which I agree to). Then you say that you want to trade your privacy for Free Stuff™.
Can’t it be argued that the socialists and communists want to trade their economic and social freedoms for Free Stuff™?
Who in your opinion is the judge for what freedoms are to be traded for what services and to whom?
Sure. I have no problems with socialists and communists wanting to trade their freedoms for whatever. The problem is that they want to trade my freedoms too, without caring to ask me.
Let each person individually decide for himself / herself without it having to be a collective “do this / do that” only.
Let each person individually decide for himself / herself without it having to be a collective “do this / do that” only.
Ok. But have you asked people whether they want to live in a place where they are forced to decide things for themselves without having some authority over them to babysit.
Because, in all probability, some farmer in north U.P is gonna be pissed off about that idea.
If a farmer in Northern UP wants to live in a place where someone else babysits him, he can very well join a cult or a commune which does those things for him. Why does he wish to burden the rest of the country with his choice of giving up his choices?
Ravikiran,
A farmer in Northern UP has done exactly what you have said. He has chosen to join a ‘commune’ called India and is satisfied with the authority over him (well, mostly!). Anyone who doesnt wish to be part of Indian society can leave it whenever they want, isn’t it?
The whole concept of civilization is that you sacrifice some of your individual rights so that the society is sustained and run. Anyone who is unhappy is free (and encouraged) to wrap up their beds and move to Timbuktoo. :-)
Each community has certain rules, you do a cost-benefit to see if its profitable to you if you join that community. My employer curtails my free speech inside his premises, but I am happy cause I value the money he gives more than my right getting sacrificed for 8 hrs a day. So I am in his community.
As simple as that.
So ultimately that’s what your argument amounts to? I have a bigger gang than you. If you don’t like what I say, you can leave?
If you think I am not being serious, tell me, do you consider it morally right if we Hindus get together and pass a constitutional amendment declaring ourselves no more a secular republic and exiling all Muslims out of the country?
Those are the rules that should be followed in the commune and if you don’t like it, you are encouraged to leave right?
Why does he wish to burden the rest of the country with his choice of giving up his choices?
Why do you wish to burden the rest of the country with your choice of living a free life?
The point is people want some authority above them to be feared, reveared and to guide them.
So when you offer them complete freedom of choice (say the libertarian world ideal is now established) they will choose in various ways to give it up for something (This is why I asked earlier “Who in your opinion is the judge for what freedoms are to be traded for what services and to whom?”). Because it is always easier to let someone else choose for you than carry the burden of choice. And things would be back to square one. Why else do you think states and religions were invented for and continue to exist?
My point is that even the libertarian world ideal needs a collective “lets choose in all manners” agreement to exist. Because people who don’t want to choose the libertarian way are a burden to the libertarian system.
Vijay, People who do not choose a libertarian way are NOT a burden in a libertarian world.
Libertarianism gives people the freedom to be communist if they wish to be (as long as they don’t force others to be commies).
Communism will kill you or condemn you to slavery (remember the gulags in Siberia?) if you even express a wish to have a libertarian lifestyle.
I suppose the difference is worth noting.
Vijay this is getting silly.
People who don’t want to choose can freely surrender their choice to whoever they want in a libertarian system. The system won’t force them to use their brains. In a non-libertarian system, the libertarians have to follow the choices dictated by others just because they have the majority on their side. Your attempt to create some kind of symmetry between the two just won’t cut it.
And in any case, the problem is rarely that people don’t want to choose. It is usually they want others to pay for their choices.
A big thanks from me to all the commenters on this post for making crucial points and interventions.
What I do find is a need to explain the basics of libertarianism which I hope to post tonight.
That would be nice Yazad, i hope to make some cracks on it!!
Communism will kill you or condemn you to slavery (remember the gulags in Siberia?) if you even express a wish to have a libertarian lifestyle.
Yes, I am aware of the gulags and the gas chambers.
Communism has never been practiced. What you are referring to is Leninism. BTW, no system (whether it’s state or religion) kills people. It is people who find some excuse to validate their prejudices/bias and to justify violence.
Vijay this is getting silly.
It isn’t silly if you can’t answer it.
I have often heard arguements against gun control on the grounds that it makes society safer and discourages criminals from commiting a crime because criminals will be scared of getting shot by the armed citizens. But this is a fallacy at best when you consider the following rules already in place in the US and approved by the NRA (the most ardent anti-gun control org).
1] It is illegal in most states to carry a concealed weapon.
This means that the criminal already knows in advance if you are carrying a gun or not. I have yet to see people walking around with holsters on the outside of their suits.
2] The NRA recommends (and requires its members) to practice responsible gun use which involves:
a] Always keeping your gun unloaded
b] locking it away in a safe place
c] putting on a child safety lock
3] It is illegal to carry a concealed weapon in your car.
Given these factors already in place and approved by the gun nuts - how exactly are guns going to make society safer because
- the criminal already knows if you have a gun or not so he won’t attack people carrying visible holsters
- the guns are supposed to be unloaded, locked and stored in your house - if a theif is actually to break into your house he is hardly likely to give you time to go to your gun safe, dial the combination lock, unlock the child safety lock and then load the gun before putting a shot in your head.
- you can’t carry a loaded gun in your car so if you’re stuck up at a traffic light or at a gas station, you hardly have time to pull it out let alone use it.
It is thus apparent that the gun only serves as an aggressive weapon and seems to have little or no defensive or deterrent impact.
You can either change the laws - but I don’t expect to hear that all the US citizens will now walk around with loaded guns tucked into their pants even if the law is changed or that recommend that they sleep with their guns under their pillows at night.
To me bettter defenses will alleviate the problem of crime not purely aggressive weapons like handguns.
- Alarm Systems and instrusion detection systems
- mace/pepper spray/tasers and non-lethal alternatives which can easily be carried on your key chain at all times
- cell phones with advanced 911 capabilities nd GPS systems (already available).
Comments?
Quite a lot of comments for your post…something not so common but loved each one of your comments. Jivha certainly was over the top with that post.
Ck, More on gun control in a separate post, but according to my preliminary readings (1996-97 data) between 31-33 states in the US have concealed carry laws.
Ravi,
“do you consider it morally right if we Hindus get together and pass a constitutional amendment declaring ourselves no more a secular republic and exiling all Muslims out of the country”
Morality is subjective and whatever decision, I repeat, WHATEVER decision anyone takes will be morally disputable. A convenient way to arrive at solutions is to just aggregate individual moral choices and make it a society’s decision. In a ruthless democratic set-up what you have said, hindus coming together, declaring the country as religious and asking muslims to either move or to convert - is perfectly acceptable and valid.
If I am not wrong, this is what is happening in most of the countries around the world, Isn’t it? Turks and Greeks in Cyprus have been asked to relocate themselves to a place where their community is in majority so that a federal system of government can be put in place. This is the essence of the solution drafted by UN (Kofi Annan). According to you it is morally condemnable. But this is what is practical and reasonalbe. Isnt it?
In a small group of 10 people, if 6 come together and want to keep the other four out of them - it is al
Gun control laws came into existence because of increase in the shootings. Delhi is a hub of the rich and the well to do and people in possession of gun licenses. Many of these people, did admit that they felt they were more in control and more “powerful” with the .35 calibre under their belt.
I don’t understand how possessing a weapon will bring down violence. Even if you give statistics, there are countless examples of “duels” being fought in England & France even though they were not allowed by law.
It’s about possessing a weapon, be it anything. The only people to an exception here is the sikh community which has laid down rules for it’s usage . While such obedience to the laws is possble in a particular community, it won’t work n a society practically speaking.
Libertarianism, while pretty idealistic it actually assumes that people would behace rationally and with goodwill at all times. This is practically impossible!!
Yaz, here is a good post on gun control from Susanna Cornett full of links and info - http://bias.blogfodder.net/archives/2004_04.html#010255.