MMS the Perversion of Indian Morality
Published by Ravikiran Rao January 17th, 2005 in Culture and SocietyIn Defence of the Youth, and the young girl in particular
Methinks the unfortunate girl from Delhi Public School whose “boyfriend” – if he deserves the title – turned out to be a real nasty piece of works, is the “victim” in the much publicized MMS case. And no one is considering how she can receive Justice. It has become a Moral Issue – with nothing to do with Justice at all.
What is so “immoral” about two young adults who fancy each other getting physical? They do what young people are supposed to be doing, if they really fancy each other. What is impermissible is what the little shit did: reap dishonour on the girl. I read she has fled the country!
Obviously no one ever told the girl not to trust a man who says, “I’ll respect you in the morning.” This little piece of shit she “made love” to is nothing but the stereotypical “North Indian Male”, famous internationally for sowing wild oats with gay abandon and then marrying some “virgin” his parents find for him: and it is this “morality” that ends up defining the “good” girl and the “bad”.
In my book, this is a case for severe civil liabilities: the boy should be made to pay a truly substantial amount to compensate the girl for the damage he has caused her. Society, on its part, should ostracize the little shit, so that no decent girl goes out with him again.
But look what happened in Delhi, the immoral capital of socialist India? The matter was treated first as a case of “moral degeneration” in the youth. The school’s reputation was dragged over the coals. The girl was virtually “destroyed” – and she fled. The little shit was taken to a “juvenile court”, which treated this as a “misadventure” and let him off. The cops, after ensuring that the little shit was let off, and that even his face (not a very “private part”!) did not appear in the papers, went into it as a case of pornography, and this gave them the excuse to “arrest” – which is very different from “conviction in a crime” – some big dude. The cops abandoned the “victim” and “victimized” someone else! Many schools banned cellphones! What kind of “morality” is this? What about Justice and the Rule of Law? What about the “victim”?
Folks, we’ve forgotten the “order” of things – a great tragedy indeed. When “ordering” the “Four Ends of Man” – dharma, artha, kama, moksha – the ancients placed kama at #3. That is, kama is not that important. Artha is at #2, and is therefore more important. At one level this makes eminent sense, as we all inevitably find out, for you don’t get the girl if you don’t have the money! But at another level, it also means that economic morality is far more important than sexual morality. The latter, especially in the modern world, has acquired a lot of “relativity” to it, varying enormously between cultures, classes and generations. But the former is the real “straight and narrow path”: you either earn by producing; or you live off plunder and theft. It is truly astonishing that the generation of Indians which heaped economic immorality into every aspect of life are the same people who say that something is wrong with the sexual morality of the youth today!
The generation of the aged ushered in economic immorality by not allowing us to earn money honestly in the market economy. For each and every thing, we must go to The Immoral State for approval. Even after “liberalization”, economic restrictions imposed by The Immoral State are a Very Heavy Load Indeed! Try opening a beer bar in Delhi. Or a dance bar in Bombay. The generation of the aged “discourage” us in the moral pursuit of wealth and “encourage” those who live off plunder – the minions of The Immoral State. Is this Evil? Or is heavy necking behind the bushes, captured on candid camera, Evil?
How can it possibly be that this generation of the aged aspires to “educate” the young – and imposes a tax on us for the purpose? Education is first about moral values: dharma.
The greatest “miseducation” kids today receive from the aged is in Economics: that is, artha. How can immoral socialists ever teach that the free market is a secular foundation of human morality? Adam Smith was a professor of Moral Philosophy: there were no “economists” then, certainly no “planners”. In a free market, like when we all go shopping, we do not snatch and steal; we “give-and-take”, we exchange, that too after both sides agree to the deal, and this is a completely moral and just interaction between two strangers. No posses of armed police “maintain law and order” on Orchard Street, the Ginza, Brigade Road or Chandni Chowk. By putting Nehru’s Immoral State at the “commanding heights of the economy” the generation of the aged ushered in an era of unprecedented economic immorality. And yes, they are all “happily married” and “faithful to their spouses” too. They uphold “family values”. Big deal! Gimme Hugh Hefner any day!
Ah! I’ve got all the old fogies, all the fuddy-duddies, very upset, have I? I’ll give them the best of Mr. Bob Dylan:
Come mothers and fathers throughout the land,
Don’t criticize what you can’t understand,
Your sons and your daughters are beyond your command,
Your old road is rapidly fading,
Please get out of the new one,
If you can’t lend a hand,
For the times, they are a-changing.
Take that!
And some good, young man somewhere please give that unfortunate girl a strong, masculine shoulder to lean on – and perhaps cry on. Tell her to cheer up for, as they say, “before you find your prince you may have to kiss a thousand frogs”. Keep on kissin’, babe! For there are lots of frogs out there.
56 Responses to “MMS the Perversion of Indian Morality”
- 1 Trackback on Jan 22nd, 2005 at 3:54 pm
- 2 Trackback on Jan 25th, 2005 at 11:21 am
Well said, Sauvik! The guy really got scott free. If this keeps happening, more incidences like MMS would happen. We expect women to be like Sita, while the men are free to be like Ravana.
Woohoo!
Um, is there an mms of the frog as well?
Allow a fuddy-duddy his quirks, won’t you?
The empty notion of socialism we followed for years destroyed India in innumerable respects, yes; our values too. But now that’s got to be blamed for 1) a little shit doing a shitty thing to his girlfriend, and 2) society deciding to tar the girlfriend too? And, to top all this, we get the not so subtle implication that had we been free-marketeers, we would have been “completely moral and just”?
You mean this kind of crummy behaviour is a product of the last 60 years? It would never have happened before?
Yeah right, and while we’re about it, why not blame these other things on socialism too:
* the time that, as a 12-year-old, I stole a (large) handful of channa from a roadside channa-man and said channa-man came running up and threw me to the ground. (Hey, fuddy-duddies were once 12-year-olds too, you know).
* the time a once-schoolmate tried to make off with the jewellery of a once-small-time-filmstar.
* the time I “lost” my parking ticket at Dallas airport and paid only the “lost ticket” fee of $7 instead of the $35 I would otherwise have had to pay.
* the time two cops pointed their guns at me, and later filed an affidavit in court saying they had done so because when they asked my name, I had said “Shaikh.”
I could go on. I really want to blame all this on socialism. Because had we been free market people all along, we’d have been so moral and just that these things would never have happened. Sure.
PS: Bob Dylan is what you might call an old fuddy-duddy too, you know. Certainly older than this f-d. Much older.
Dudes
Socialism v free markets is an entirely different debate from changing morality. What on earth are you arguing about?
Dilip (aka f-d?), you’re beating up on a straw man here, no libertarian would claim or has claimed that “this kind of crummy behaviour is a product of the last 60 years” or would “blame all this on socialism”. Our poverty and under-development as an economy can certainly be blamed on Nehruvian socialism, but the MMS thing was just human nature. (Which is an explanation, not an exculpation, so don’t start attacking me as if I justified it.)
Souvik, I think morality is in quite a separate domain from which economic system you follow, and I don’t think a socialist is immoral, as you seem to be suggesting, but merely misguided about economics. Also, even if the whole socialist system was immoral, it would not dilute the immorality of the MMS thingie, if that was immoral, or negate criticism of it.
To sum it up, don’t bring moral values into economic theory. And show me the frog.
Amit,
No, I don’t think it’s such a straw man. Here’s just one sentence in Sauvik’s outpourings:
The generation of the aged ushered in economic immorality by not allowing us to earn money honestly in the market economy.
Who are these people who are “not allowing” people to “earn money honestly”? No, this is just an excuse proferred by people who would rather blame some amorphous beast for their own lack of ethics and values (”immorality” if you like, though I don’t have much use for notions of morals anyway).
After all, I know plenty of people who did earn money honestly all these 60 years. Lived perfectly comfortable lives too.
But the ones who went out of their way, worked hard, to be dishonest — ah, those guys now need a scapegoat for their own failings. Why not blame that too on our failed experiment with socialism? After all, In a free market, like when we all go shopping, we do not snatch and steal … and this is a completely moral and just interaction between two strangers.
I really hope there are people making a better argument for free markets.
As for MMSes of frogs kissing, check with one Kareena Kapoor…
Amit,
I’m sorry, I misread you. You wrote, you’re beating up on a straw man here, no libertarian would claim or has claimed…
Indeed. But I wasn’t beating up on libertarians, I was beating up on what Sauvik wrote.
Hope that’s clear.
socialism is inherently IMMORAL because :
1. it first denies the INDIVIDUAL,
2. it denies individual property rights
3. nationalisation is “legal plunder”
4. economic transfers from rich-to-poor are also “legal plunder”, violative of property rights.
in the free market, when we voluntarily exchange, as free individuals - we give as well as take - the exercise is both moral as well as just.
Souvik, I have exactly the same complaints as you, and more, against socialism, but I believe socialism is wrong not because it is immoral, but because it is impractical. Morality is a complicated issue, and while I wouldn’t rush to ascribe moral values to things, I guess that’s subjective, and perhaps just a matter of semantics anyway.
Dilip, I think it’s unfair of you to imply that Souvik’s argument is motivated by his “own lack of ethics and values”, or that he “went out of [his] way, worked hard, to be dishonest”. I don’t think we need to examine the intent of the person making an argument to answer the argument adequately. I’m a little surprised at the tone of that comment (No. 6).
Excellently written. Wish had more to say.
Amit,
I know nothing about Sauvik. But when he says that we were “not allowed” to be honest by our elders, something is twisted. And that, I’m going to react to.
Honesty is a choice. You can choose to be so, you can equally well choose not to be so. Which is why I said, I know plenty of people who did earn honestly despite the misery of socialism and the slide in values. They chose to do so.
But whatever you choose, please don’t blame your choice on someone else. Nobody and nothing forced anyone to be dishonest. My feeling is, people who choose to be dishonest will choose to be so even in a free market. Only then, they will find a way to blame the free market for their dishonesty.
Which is why I wrote, I really hope there are people making a better argument for free markets. That socialism didn’t allow people to be honest is a pretty empty one.
Sauvik - I would like to ask you how Delhi (the immoral capital of socialist India) would have reacted if the same incident had taken place in 1945.
Don’t you think the way the “system” reacted was due to the social setup of India (which is ages older than socialism)?
Just so that people don’t point the libertarian dagger at me for indirectly disagreeing with someone speaking against socialism, I would like to add rather defensively - I fully agree with your anger at the way the society reacted, but I (fully)disagree with your root-cause analysis.
-Offtopic-
Dilip - Honesty wasn’t as much a choice as you are making it out to be in Socialist India.
By accepting to widen the scope of this argument from morality to honesty, you are defending socialism in a broader spectrum now. Is that intended?
-Offtopic-
Swami, I make no defence of socialism. I am doing no widening of any scope. Sauvik said something about how people (”us”) were “not allow[ed] to earn money honestly.”
I have little use for morality. But honesty, now that’s something you can choose.
Good question, Swami (to Sauvik).
Dilip, I think that when Sauvik says that the system erred in “not allowing us to earn money honestly in the market economy”, he does not mean that it was impossible or undesirable to be honest, but simply that honesty was not the optimum policy for an ambitious individual, as it would be in a well-functioning free market. Tell me, if you wanted to start a textile business before 1991, would you even get a license without bribing someone? The economy was controlled by a state apparatus, and the discretion they had inevitably led to corruption, and in the field of business at least, as opposed to academics perhaps, it was difficult to thrive without being dishonest. A quintessential example is Reliance, which owed its success to wheeling-dealing and nefarious practices. The other great Indian companies that existed were pre-independence giants like the Tatas and Birlas, and even Laxmi Mittal had to go abroad to make an honest fortune. Infosys would never have thrived had we not changed course, and Reliance is still suffereing from the non-transparency of the manner in which it was set up.
I don’t agree with Sauvik’s argument, of course, as I don’t believe that a moral dimension should be attached to economic policy, but that particular point he is making is valid, and I don’t think one should question his intent. (I don’t know him either, btw.)
And yes, a better case can be made for free markets, but you ran away from dinner that day. Come next time, Yazad has promised to take us to a dance bar.
Ha ha ha - Sauvik talking about the rule of law?? Here is Sauvik’s take on the rule of law:
Sauvik is the last person to be talking about law. Lest I be accused of ad hominem attacks the complete quotes from Sauvik (the real Sauvik not the pseudo-intellectual) is found here
Let the free market operate - the information is on the internet - you make up your own minds (IP addresses are easily verifyable ;)
Amit wrote:
I would hesitate to agree with the notion that policy can be made in a moral vacuum. Libertarians often quote Kant, Cato and Mill. Check out these writings on the moral side of policy from the libertarian Cato Institute this article and this one
Even Friedman spoke often about the fact that free markets were a morally sound idea since they helped the poor.
By far, the best snappy answer was by V. S. Naipaul to an interviewer in Delhi. When asked whether India was becoming too materialistic, he snapped, ” the poor need it”.
Now there’s morality for you. :-)
Amit wrote:
Tell me, if you wanted to start a textile business before 1991, would you even get a license without bribing someone
As somebody who has run from pillar to post to get all the fucking licences and permits for a new business, let me tell you that you can’t get one even now without bribing someone. Things haven’t changed that much.
I read Souvik’s article as comparison of kamic immorality with aarthic immorality. He said that what the guy and gal did was natural, and not immoral. What the guy did later was. I doubt if he attributed the entire episode to socialism. The only connection which might hint at this is the statement
“the immoral capital of socialist India”
If you read the next few paragraphs, you can think of two immoral Delhis:
1. Immoral children of the rich who go around f***ing each other crazy.
2. Immoral socialists who are the worst enemies of the people they claim to stand for.
The second, in Sauvik’s opinion, is a far greater immorality. In my opinion too, for the latter affects a zillion people while former hardly affects anyone besides those directly involved (and those insanely dragged by an overeager police).
But then, wasn’t the police action of arresting the bazee guy — rich, successful, and therefore in a socialist viewpoint immoral and ever eager to spin the issue to his financial advantage — a clear demonstration of the pervasive socialist mindset of the country?
BTW Sauvik, I take strong exception to your statement:
“young man somewhere please give that unfortunate girl a strong, masculine shoulder to lean on”
It still perpetrates (perhaps unintended) the stereotype of weaker woman needing a stronger man.
Niket,
Fully agreed. The last statement was sexist. But then, the essay is riddled with gross generalizations [”stereotypical North Indian male”,”you don’t get the girl if you don’t have the money”] We, the cartel, should all contribute to bombard Sauvik’s home with Manushi. :-)
Amit,
Your question about the textile business and (esp) Reliance is well-asked. But you know what, I’ve heard plenty of people asking, for example, how was it possible for a bureaucrat to be honest before 1991? Well, I personally know plenty such, who rose to the top of their professions nevertheless. Not just that, I know plenty of dishonest bureaucrats whose dishonesty has thrived after 1991 — which is just what MadMan laments.
In the same way, I know of other professions — housing, electrical equipment, planning, architecture — where people I know chose (yes, chose) to be honest in our socialist paradise days, and did well nevertheless. People every bit as ambitious as the Mittals and so forth.
I get suspicious when people tell me somebody or someone did not “allow” them to be honest. That’s all.
The other point I want to react to is when Sauvik said socialism is inherently IMMORAL. Now as practiced, and therefore presented to the world, I find all these ideologies profoundly repugnant: communism, fascism, nazism, hindutva, apartheid, pretty much every religion. So Indian socialism joins the list because of the hypocrisies and injustices it perpetrated.
But was it “inherently immoral”? I don’t know how to make such a call. Crummy people can do great evil with the best sounding theories, and for me, that in the end is the only test — whatever the theories or religious precepts may say.
And finally: a better case can be made for free markets, but you ran away from dinner that day. Come next time, Yazad has promised to take us to a dance bar.
A dance bar? There can be NO better case for a free market. I’m persuaded. Any nagging questions about morality may be left with the bouncer at the front door, I presume?
Well written - more importantly good you expressed. It is a pretty disgusting state of affairs, and a pretty sad commentary on the Indian culture of hypocrisy. Technology here is acting as the great leveller for the fairer sex in India - even the rich girls are not exempt from coming out the only ones all scathed in a relationship of this kind.
Yazad has entered a dance bar exactly twice and stayed for a total of 2 mins (both times included). The music is too damn loud and the women can’t dance ;-)
So, I’m gonna give it a miss. All those who like loud music and bad dancing, please go ahead and enjoy yourselves.
I shall be going to the the Xaviers-IMG Festival of Indian Classical Music instead.
Quizman, thanks for the links.
Dilip, you’re shifting goalposts. Even my dad, like yours, was an honest bureaucrat. But that was a choice he made, and not the materially optimum course of action. Sure, you could thrive in some professions (like that of an electrician?) without needing to be dishonest,but not in all, and that’s an important point surely. If an individual wants to make an honest living in that kind of set-up, his choice of professions is constrained, and business isn’t one of them. Surely that’s wrong.
Listen, the dance bar thing was a joke. We had no such intentions, but if you insist, we’ll try and work something out. Why would we leave morality at the front door, though?
MadMan, point taken, but they are changing for the better, in some areas more than others. No?
“The music is too damn loud and the women can’t dance ;-)”
I blame socialism for this. I really do.
Amit,
“Shifting goalposts”. Should have guessed it would show up, that classic argumentative weapon, following up on that other classic, “beating up on a straw man.”
What goalposts, actually? (or what straw man?). My main problem with Sauvik’s essay is what he says about not being “allowed to earn money honestly”.
One last time: I believe honesty is a choice. People who choose to be dishonest are likely to be so regardless of whether it is socialism or free markets at work. I make no judgements on the morality of people who want to be dishonest; but when they blame the outside world for the choices they make, they’ve lost their argument. (Aren’t free markets about making your own choices and taking responsibility for them?)
These are the goalposts (or the straw men) I’ve stood in front of since this thing began. Where have I shifted them?
My dad “was an honest bureaucrat”? How do you know?
Plenty of people I knew in ALL professions — electricians, business, bureaucrats, architects — chose to live honest lives in our socialist days. Their choice of business was not constrained. They had difficulties, yes; again, as MadMan says, many of those difficulties remain. Is saying this shifting the goalposts?
As for dance bars, really, is it only if I say “Haha” that it becomes clear I knew it was a joke?
What are we arguing about, actually? Must Sauvik be defended — or his critics accused of shifting goalposts — solely because he’s a libertarian too? (Is he?)
Seriously, what are we arguing about?
I think what Swami says in comments #12 and #13 delineates the issue clearly
1) Do you think that it was a practical choice to be honest in Socialist India?
By practical, I mean that the answer shouldn’t be “Yes, but with great difficulty. If you were willing to study long, complicated and contradictory rules and regulations, fight long court cases, see your colleagues promoted over you while you stagnated, see your competitors get ahead by dishonest means and you stay awake at night wondering what answer to give your children when they ask you whether to stay on in India or leave, then yes, you could be ‘honest’ in Socialist India.”
2) Do you agree with Sauvik that this incident is in any way indicative of the lack of morality engendered by Socialism?
My answer to both questions is “No”
INDIVIDUALISM, SOCIALISM & MORALITY:
when we go out as INDIVIDUALS to make economic gain, we do not go out to rob or cheat, but to satisfy and please our customers - the rest of humanity. win-win. the only losers are the COMPETITION, but this war is one of CREATIVE DESTRUCTION, rendering great benefits to the customers - society.
when we go out as SOCIALISTS to make economic gain, we do so out of the urge to ROB from one section of society and GIVE to another, we do not want to create wealth; only redistribute it. this is a win-lose “zero-sum” game.
when a businessman thinks, he only has thoughts of how to better his product - and these are good, moral thoughts.
when socialists think, they only have ideas of how to ROB from the general pool of resources and give a little of it to their friends or supporters.
businesses start small and keep growing - because they are based on moral principles.
socilist parties and socialist nations all collapse because their basic fundamental premise is immoral.
Dilip,
You are making a simplistic argument. You are thinking of individuals when you should be thinking of systems. Economics will tell you that a lot depends on the incentives that are set by the prevailing environment. In that sense, yes, there are people who were dishonest under the licence regime (i.e. they bribed an officer to get a licence) who would have been honest under different circumstances.
And, pray tell, how do you define honesty? Is it following the law? What if the law is immoral? Then is breaking it honesty or dishonesty? The law that said that set 90% marginal tax rates (in the 70s) - was that immoral? Would I have been “dishonest” if I had broken it? I myself don’t know the answers - do you? Or are you willing to concede that there might be some grey area here?
Girish, of course there are grey areas.
But I’m so glad you brought up the tax rates. Certainly when the marginal rates were 90%, people had great incentive to hide their incomes. But those rates went to 33% in the 80s (? correct me if not). People are still hiding their incomes today, to the extent that only some 10% (I might be off on this a few points) of eligible taxpayers actually pay income tax.
Which proves this much: those who want to hide their incomes will do so regardless of the rates. Those who want to be dishonest will be so regardless of whether it’s free markets or socialism at work.
I love it when people tell me I’m thinking of individuals and not systems. Just what is the “system” made of, Girish, if not a large number of individuals? What is the system’s behaviour except the aggregate of millions of individuals’ behaviours? And so, if I’m told the “system” did not “allow us to be honest”, what else would I do but look to the people — many people — who chose to be honest in that system? (And really, I mean honest in a far more profound way than simply paying their taxes).
Dilip,
I’ll give you a concrete example. Some brain-dead bureaucract made a rule called “police verification” as part of the passport application process. A cop shows up at your house to check whether you live there. He also asks you to state how long you’ve resided there. He also goes to a couple of neighbours to check on your “moral behavior and good conduct”.
My wife needed a passport urgently since she had to go abroad. However, she had not resided at Bangalore for more than 2 years. So the B’lore cops sent it to the city where she had previously resided. My wife’s family were tenants in that house and it was occupied by someone else now. When the cops showed up, the new tenants said, “Maalum nahin kaun hai”. So the cops wrote back to the B’lore cops and I quote, “addressee not found in address given”.
The Blore cop called me to the station. He told me that the passport application would be rejected. [The cop has compelete info about you since you have to produce your bank passbook]. Then he told me, “If you look after me, I can indicate that she’s been residing here for two years”. Remember this is a police station. This was obviously blackmail. My wife’s career was on the line.
I paid. That’s not all, the cop went to the inspector for his signature. The inspector sends a message back to me indicating that he would like his palms greased too. I had to pay this ‘bonus’ as well.
I don’t need anyone giving me moralistic lectures on how honest we could be under socialism. It made me immoral. I had ended up betraying the very values that I had been brought up to abhor.
Lawmakers and law upholders are the biggest law breakers in socialism.
bureaucract = bureaucrat
I’m convinced that I’m ‘computer-dyslexic’.
“Shifting goalposts”. Should have guessed it would show up, that classic argumentative weapon, following up on that other classic, “beating up on a straw man.” What goalposts, actually? (or what straw man?).
Goalpost - You’d written earlier: “Your question about the textile business and (esp) Reliance is well-asked. But you know what, I’ve heard plenty of people asking, for example, how was it possible for a bureaucrat to be honest before 1991?”
That’s shifting goalposts, innit?
Straw man - Well, you said earlier, “You mean this kind of crummy behaviour is a product of the last 60 years?” No one said that. Straw man said that.
Sauvik,
When you say “when we go out as INDIVIDUALS to make economic gain, we do not go out to rob or cheat…”, you are talking about the IDEAL; but when you say “when we go out as SOCIALISTS to make economic gain, we do so out of the urge to ROB…”, you are talking about the (MIS)APPLICATION of the IDEAL. Huge difference! Let us compare apples with apples.
“when a businessman thinks, he only has thoughts of how to better his product…”
On what planet?
You must be talking about Dilip’s ‘Honest by choice’ businessman. Like Dilip said, he would be honest no matter what system he trades in.
When a businessman thinks, and if he has only one thought, I’ll bet that thought is of profits. Now if he is honest, he will try to make those profits honestly. Again, nothing to do with the system.
Why is an Enron robbing people of millions of dollars any different from the Communists doing the same in Russia, or the Socialists doing it in India?
Dilip,
Yes, systems are made up of individuals - but wouldn’t you agree that people in the aggregate often act differently than individuals. Doesn’t mob violence teach us that? You can generalize about populations, but you cannot generalize about individuals. Isn’t that a fundamental premise of statistics?
Have I ever said that there aren’t dishonest people around? Of course there are dishonest people doing dishonest things? But so what? Dishonesty is on a normal curve, just like everything else. And there is always tension between acting honestly and dishonestly - now add to that the system’s push towards acting dishonestly, and you make a lot of people, who would have otherwise acted honestly, act otherwise. Or do you see honesty and dishonesty as absolutes?
And you say you are speaking about honesty in a “far more profound way than paying taxes” - yet you don’t define what that means. How can you hold someone to a standard you can’t define? Is it like porn and you know it when you see it?
I have no doubt that there are businessmen who were dishonest when they didn’t want to be. That’s not to say that these businessmen are virtuous, by any means. It just means that the system created incentives for a certain type of behavior. Now, there were definitely a few people who stayed completely above the fray and behaved in exemplary ways. But the vast middle of the curve are effected by incentives - and they will behave in alignment with those incentives. Is this sad? Is this tragic? Maybe, but the willful disregard of the reality of human nature is what caused socialism and communism in the first place.
Finally (and this is not to you Dilip), please stop with the “mis-application of the ideal” nonsense. I’ve heard this so many times - “socialism has never really been tried correctly”. If you try something 100 times - and each time it results the same things - stagnant economies, concentration of power in the state, low levels of individual freedoms - then it is not the mis-application of an ideal that’s at fault, it’s the ideal itself. After all, capitalism hasn’t really been tried correctly either - there’s always this pesky welfare requirement (please, I’m being sarcastic - I’m not a capitalist anarchist). But wherever it has been tried with “a tolerable administration of justice”, it has resulted in great and widespread wealth.
And the difference between Enron and India or Russia. Hmmm, let me see. Stalin killed 20 million people. Enron killed, well no-one. India has kept millions of people in poverty for 50 years. Employees of Enron are all probably employed very gainfully earning the (filthy capitalist) US per capita wage of $40,000. Further, from the time Enron’s shenanigans were discovered to the time Enron failed was about 1 or 2 years. Communist Russia lasted 80 years and socialist India 40 years.
Finally Enron resulted in a very entertaining issue of Playboy.
the INDIVIDUAL businessman in a free market is free to be a cheat, a scoundrel or whatever - like enron.
but the fact is that in the free market cheats and swindlers get found out - and lose: like enron.
the free market REWARDS good behaviour and good producers, good performers and so on. that is why BRAND EQUITY matters so much in a free market.
the free market DISCOURAGES cheats and swindlers - and, further, the free market also implies THE RULE OF LAW - with which to deal with the bad guys.
under socialism, as bastiat said, “the law is guilty of the very crimes it is supposed to prevent.” that is why we have such a criminalised political and administrative system.
GET IT!
KEEP IT!
The econlib website has the complete text of Frédéric Bastiat’s The Law from which Sauvik just quoted.
Girish,
Here’s an analogy re: the system vs the individual. A guy once wrote a paper he asked me to read, in which he made this interesting claim: vast majority of
Indian Muslims have become sympathizers of extremism.
So I wrote to him, Here are several Muslims who have played cricket for India: Zaheer Khan, Syed Kirmani, Iqbal Siddiqui, Mohammed Kaif, Mohammed Azharuddin, Arshad Ayub, Abid Ali, Amir Elahi, Abbas Ali Baig, Salim Durrani, MAK Pataudi, Ghulam Ahmed, Gul Mohammed, KC Ibrahim, Wasim Jaffer, Mushtaq Ali, Irfan Pathan. Please tell me precisely which of them are sympathizers of extremism. It should be easy, since the “vast majority” of Muslims are such sympathizers.
He wrote back with this even more interesting claim: Your approach of giving specific examples is flawed as they do not make up the statistics.
Really? What else makes up the statistics but specific examples? What else makes a system but individuals?
In the same way, when someone says an entire system did not allow us to earn money honestly, I’m going to say, but here are these guys I know, and no small number either, who did earn money honestly in that system. What’s it, did I just happen to run into members of the tiny honest minority?
You can make generalizations about systems, peoples, all that. Those generalizations can also be debunked. Socialism caused vast damage to my country, yes; but I don’t see why, to make that case, it is necessary to pretend that every ill in this country is the fault of socialism. (This is why I think Swami asked, what would have happened had the MMS thing happened in 1945?)
I should say, and repeat myself, that it’s not so much the generalization that Sauvik made that I reacted to as his implication that he was not “allowed” to be honest.
More profound ways than just paying taxes: OK, since you asked. Dealing cleanly, transparently and efficiently with customers/clients. Following ordinary rules, like one-way signs. Sticking to your place in a line for, say, railway tickets. Ensuring that material meant for victims of a disaster gets to them. I could go on, but maybe you get the picture.
Small, simple things? Yes. That’s why they are profound to me.
Dilip,
Your correspondent was right! Citing examples doesn’t prove anything. It’s substituting anecdotes for truth. What your answer should have been is “Prove it. Prove that the vast majority of muslims sympathize with terrorists. Show me a correctly designed survey with appropriately random, correctly sized samples that can prove this contention of yours.” In his first missive, your correspondent was talking out of his rear and you should have challenged him on that with science.
Anyway, I agree with you when you say that every ill is not caused by socialism. My point was a different one - about wrong incentives causing harm. And that harm saying less about the people on whom the incentives are acting than about the incentives themselves.
This has been fun! I enjoy the fact that you are an idealist, unlike me; I’m a cynic :).
Souvik,
Forgive my naivete’/ignorance, but
where in this world is the law not guilty of the crimes it is supposed to prevent.
There is a criminalized element in politics and administration everywhere.
I think it all boils down to how educated the population is, and how involved and responsible it feels about the goings-on.
Is it your position that free market capitalism promotes public involvement and responsibility better than socialism or for that matter any ‘ism’?
Also, is it socialism that is responsible for the lack of education in India, or is it the traditional social set-up?
What is responsible for the ignorance, the apathy, and the ‘chalta-hai’ attitude?
under the COMMON LAW, that is, from about 1100 AD in england, there was complete LIBERTY under the law - because of PROPERTY RIGHTS.
“EVERY FREEBORN ENGLISHMAN IS THE KING OF HIS OWN CASTLE”.
there was no DEMOCRACY then.
even after there was a parliament in england, the role of this house was just to vote on taxation and other such matters pertaining to the supervision of ministers and departments - there was almost no LEGISLATION.
scholars of the COMMON LAW always make a distinction between LAW (that is, the common law) and LEGISLATION. in the old days, the english saw the common law as their protection (of private property and liberty) and they saw LEGISLATION as the king’s instrument, something that was DISRUPTIVE: something to be opposed.
thanks to jean-jacques rousseau and his idealisation of the “general will” (admired both by the french revolutionaries as well as by later americans who inherited the libertarian free country of america) and thanks to a legal philosopher in england called blackstone, who called for “parliamentary sovereignty”, we now inhabit a world dominated by LEGISLATION - something very different from THE LAW.
it is for this reason that all over the “democratic” world, it is “THE LAW (or more appropriately, LEGISLATION)IS GUILTY OF THE VERY CRIMES IT IS SUPPOSED TO PUNISH.”
this is sometimes called DEMOCRATIC DESPOTISM. do see an article with this title by ilana mercer at www.mises.org in the daily articles archives.
the solution lies in strengthening the common law (we are supposed to be a common law country!) so that we can defend ourselves against all this LEGISLATION (”parliamentary sovereignty”!).
remember, in the days before “parliamentary sovereignty”, the norm was THE KING IS UNDER GOD AND THE LAW.
with parliamentary sovereignty, these “representaives of the GENERAL WILL” have become ABOVE THE LAW.
think about it.
Sauvik,
Thanks for the esplanade.
Can’t help but notice an obvious flaw though…(probably off topic)
Did only FREEBORN Englishmen have property rights? Whither morality?
Well, I guess the answer would be “Morality evolves”
Sachatur,
In 1100 AD, slavery existed. That’s why “freeborn.” Of course that situation also had flaws (slavery is a big one), but Sauvik pointed out the history quite well.
And here is the article he spoke about: Democratic Despotism by Ilana Mercer
“freeborn” englishmen, under feudalism and the common law, were those who held “freehold” tenures of land (called “seisin”: permanent property rights, and their only lord was the king.
the serfs, called “villeins” in england, held land under leases or terms which differed greatly between manors and estates. but it is not true that they did not have justice under the law. by 1300, “termors” (those who held land for a fixed term) had “possession” under the law, and their leaseholds could not be disturbed. the popular saying went: “termors are in possession, while freeholders are in seisin.”
the issue is not only of morality, but also JUSTICE - which is the object of the law.
under the common law, there was justice simply because the law did not want to take anyone’s property away.
the law was not a thief, “guilty of the very crimes it is supposed to punish.”
GET IT????
my comments above (#46)also imply that HAYEK WAS WRONG!!
hayek titled his great critique of socialism “THE ROAD TO SERFDOM”.
but the history of serfdom under the common law shows that serfs in those days were far better off than anyone under socialist laws.
while hayek is gone - but “his soul goes marching on” - i do believe all reprints of his great book (which contains a chapter entitled “HOW THE WORST GET ON TOP”!!!) should be re-titled “THE ROAD TO THE AGE OF THE NEANDERTHALS”.
i do believe it is only in those times that “humans” plundered and stole - exhibiting the same disrespect for property rights that latter-day socialists show.
HOWZZAT??????
Without getting into the raging debate on socialism, democracy and all the blah, first things first.. just what made you generalise so, over here?
>>
This little piece of shit she “made love” to is nothing but the stereotypical “North Indian Male”, famous internationally for sowing wild oats with gay abandon and then marrying some “virgin” his parents find for him
>>
Do u find it difficult to imagine that a South Indian male would have done the same (sowing wild oats et al or sending an MMS)? Or that an Indian male would have done the same or for that matter that a male would have done the same? Frankly it’s not a male/female or region based thing at all.. it’s a person to person thing about how they reacted to the situation.. and before you cast daggers at me.. I am not a north indian/south indian or whatever male at all, but you definitely seem to be heavily biased against north indian guys.
“They do what young people are supposed to be doing, if they really fancy each other.”
uh?? Is that what young people are supposed to be doing if they like each other..and that too at *school* age?? True there are cases to cite that this happens, but that doesn’t imply that they are there to do supposedly just “that” or that it is “correct”.. AFA right or wrong age are concerned, that’s another debate altogether.. but at school one can hardly be classified as a young “adult”.
The female was very well aware of what she was getting into and no one forced her into it. I dont think she needs any “masculine shoulder to lean on”.. Instead of giving head to some sick twerp, she needs to have a sensible one on her own shoulders.
What is so shameful is not the act of the young man who made and distributed the video, however reprehensible it was, but the way that Middle Class India chose to let this incident become a matter of consequence. Female sexuality in India needs to be released from the European Madonna/Whore Dichotomy and Indian women need to start having sex with whomever they want when they want.
if anybody have kareena mms pls send on my id nitinsharma1322@yahoo.co.in
hey why u people cribbing so much . accept the fact we like nude women and girls. this is happening since the ages of kamasutra. why crib abt it. just enjoy these mms and forget. noone can resist seein nude girls like delhi mms, preity zinta etc . develop people . broaden ur thinking . clapping occurs only between two consenting hands and not one. bye everyone . regards.
please send me all mms clips of bollywood actresses on the above id.
please send me all mms clips of bollywood actresses on pranavdimple123@yahoo.co.in
ye problem is this who will decide morality coz in india lots of peoples from every region always talk about different ideology so how can be possible what is wrong or right .