WHY I AM AND AM NOT A LIBERTARIAN

For many days now I wanted to pen my thoughts on what I think about libertarianism. This is mostly because I find myself often agreeing and disagreeing with libertarians. Many people who call themselves libertarians are my good friends and so these conversations are frequent and interesting. But somewhere I have to constantly ask myself which “ism” I belong to. While I never like to label myself any kind of “rian” or “ist”, the expediencies of taking a position inevitably mean that one has to at least slightly lean towards one side or the other. But most of the time I find myself alternately taking sides. This does not mean I am confused but it just means that I alternately favor one viewpoint or the other based on the times. I personally think that political positions should be fluid, like dressing for the weather. The correct response should not be either-or but should consist of changing proportions of ideologies depending on the environment. I humbly think that that this position is a safe one since it at least endeavors to remind you of trying to stay unbiased, even if in practice you cannot. So here’s a short account of some very simple thoughts about this matter that I have. These thoughts don’t constitute any argument against libertarianism nor any sophisticated critique, lest my friends immediately rise up in arms against me. It’s more a general documentation of arguments and discussions that I have had and what I have thought about them. More simply, it’s a set of ramblings that I get to indulge in because this is my personal blog.

Let’s begin with acknowledging that most sensible people who are not extremists are libertarians to some extent. That is, most sensible people will agree that people should be free to live their own lives in whatever way they deem appropriate, and that government should have a minimal say in their lives and decisions. First let’s talk about social libertarianism. This is really short and simple, because here I am almost in complete agreement with all libertarians. I strongly oppose government intervention in matters of personal choice such as abortion and gay marriage. Leave the gay business to the gay people. I also strongly feel that, the caveats of such a policy notwithstanding, drugs and prostitution should be legal and that government should not have an authority to prosecute ‘victimless crimes’. When it comes to social libertarianism, I am pretty much in lockstep with libertarian principles.

It is when it comes to economic libertarianism (not completely mutually exclusive from social libertarianism) that I start to have disagreements with my libertarian friends. Again, let’s start by acknowledging that most people who have thought carefully about these matters and have a basic understanding of history will agree that on the whole, free markets rather than central command economies constitute the best system for maximizing rewards and nurturing incentives and freedom. I am for example in complete agreement that property right are of supreme importance and that such rights have been rampantly violated in case of farmers in India, both by the government and by private corporations. On the whole we need to agree and keep on arguing that free markets are best. Only self-deluded mortals (read Comrade Karat) would believe otherwise. In this context, I find close and parallels between Adam Smith’s “invisible hand” and Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection. Both frameworks rest on ideas that constitute simplicity itself. Both frameworks lead to propitious complexity starting from very simple principles. However, Adam Smith himself did not advocate laissez faire capitalism. Several sources document this fact. Now of course because Smith does not advocate a principle does not mean that that principle is bad. But all I ask is that the same free marketers who swear by Smith’s name and praise his Wealth of Nations also pay due homage to his Theory of Moral Sentiments as well as some of the lesser known parts of Wealth which advocate government intervention in areas like education. Ideally, I think it would be better if we don’t swear by anyone’s name.

So then, the question really boils down to when and how much government intervention should be allowed. I personally believe that for most political camps who don’t take extreme positions, this is the real issue to argue about. Libertarians just like other political camps straddle a wide range of their political philosophy, with some advocating complete and unfettered free markets and others supporting government intervention in at least some endeavors. Again, the scope and value of such government intervention can be argued, but at least you have distinguished between two sub-factions there to begin with.

No other dimension of public policy encompasses libertarians’ objections to government intervention so much as paying taxes, and this has been one of the major sources of contention for me. First I would like to gently clarify a point. There is a minority of libertarians who assume that the very fact they they constantly argue against taxes of every kind means that they are taking the high moral road. By default then, anyone who opposes them and actually argues in favour of this tax or that one is advocating social coercion and has already consigned himself to Hayek’s famous “road to serfdom”. This is unfair and uncalled for. Just because I may think that some taxes are justified does not mean that I love freedom any less than you do or that I want to impose my will on my maid or that I am ready to be enslaved by the government. Once we have clarified this source of much outrage on my part and others, let’s move on to the actual issues.

When it comes to not paying taxes, my contention is very simple. If you don’t pay taxes, you don’t reap the rewards. This is the famous “free rider” problem. Let’s say I don’t think that one government endeavor or the other is not justified and therefore I don’t want to pay taxes to support it. That’s fine, but then why should I be entitled to any benefits that may accrue from it? If I do think that I should be entitled to its benefits, then wouldn’t I be a free rider capitalizing on other people’s support of government projects? There are happily many such avenues of government-sponsored human activity where there is consensus on public support. Nobody for example would question the extensive basic science research programs that have been supported in India or the US; there most people seem to agree on some notion of ‘sacrifice’ that they make to support the collective enterprise. But there are many other borderline cases which are hotly argued, where the free rider problem rears its ugly head. I have not yet found a libertarian who has been satisfactorily been able to answer the free-rider dilemma for me. Now in theory I can see an answer; the system can be mutually reinforcing. That means that I should be entitled to the benefits from some government endeavor that I don’t support because in turn I am probably paying taxes for some other government endeavor that somebody else does not support. However, how does one exactly break down the value and scope of these two projects which will almost certainly differ in their nature and investment returns? I believe that the problem of taxes may be resolved to a large extent once we address the free rider problem. The problem of not paying taxes to support others also has another rather unpleasant dimension to it. When it comes to healthcare for instance, many people argue that raising taxes to provide universal healthcare is ‘immoral’. We won’t argue about the thorny healthcare issue at this point. But let’s assume that this point is justified. It won’t be implausible to assume then that the poor may revolt against the rich at some point, French Revolution-style. Their actions surely won’t be justified, but a system in which inequality keeps on growing simply may burst at some point. I would think that preventing such a catastrophe would be in the interests of everybody.

There is no other sphere of activity that challenges libertarian principles as much as climate change, and it is here that I probably have the biggest difference of opinion with libertarians. But this should not really be so. Let’s look at the core libertarian tenet again which essentially says that both socially and economically, every individual should be free to do whatever he or she wants as long as his or her actions don’t trespass on someone else’s freedom and rights. However, in my opinion, climate change immediately provides the biggest exception to the core libertarian tenet. When it comes to global warming, the individual’s activities do harm and trespass on the rights (air, water, land) enjoyed by other individuals in remote parts of the world. Since climate change provides a very readily seen exception to the core libertarian tenet, I personally find it wondrous that libertarians would so strongly resist government intervention in mitigating climate change since such intervention would not violate libertarian principles after all.

But let’s leave aside politics here. What I found depressing was that there was a minority of libertarians who so strenuously wanted to argue against government intervention in these matters that for a long time they even refused to accept the science behind climate change. A case in point was George Reisman who wrote this completely misguided essay against environmentalism that did not soundly address a single piece of hard scientific evidence in favour of climate change (link: Chetan). This inadequate understanding and appreciation of the science and the problem leads people like Don Boudreaux to completely miss the point and write flippant articles that are supposed to reassure us that “we are not going to run out of oil”. Unfortunately I don’t remember any libertarian taking a strong stance against this crackpot refusal of facts in the face of massive evidence. I am sure most libertarians would not be loathe to accept objective scientific facts just because they would suggest measures that seem to violate their treasured political ideals.

Even the great Milton Friedman acknowledged that, as much as the government was responsible for the Great Depression in his controversial opinion, once the Depression set in, massive government intervention was necessary and justified. Climate change today is unfortunately in a similar precarious position. All scientific indicators and the testimony of hundreds of careful and dedicated scientists point towards this fact. There is no debate about the reality and pernicious effects of climate change. We have already passed many crucial checkpoints, if not the ultimate tipping point. Are libertarian solutions to climate change possible? In theory, yes, provided they had been suggested fifty years ago. Of course we did not know anything about global warming fifty years ago so the point is meaningless. But the real point is that it does not matter now. The great problem of our times is that we have to do something right now. Large-scale legislation to curb CO2 emissions, to improve mileage efficiency, to stop deforestation and the exploitation of fisheries, to cap sources of carbon is necessary right now. At the very least, this fact should be given serious consideration by all of us. Libertarian solutions where the market “regulates itself” may be possible in principle, and while these principles may still be applicable in local scenarios, the times are past for employing them on the stage of global affairs. A typical libertarian scenario would posit that if car companies don’t have better emission standards, the public would be concerned about its health and be loathe to buy cars from them, which would set in motion the self-correcting wheels of demand and supply. The simple fact that throws a wrench in this smooth clockwork solution is that by then it will simply be too late and neither I nor anyone else would really care that the market provided a ‘solution’. Also, the free rider problem crops up in such circumstances too. Consider that there are two kinds of cars, one which is cheap and pollutes and another which is expensive and clean- a pretty plausible scenario. It would be tempting to imagine that in such a case, public pressure and refusal to purchase would force the polluting car company to switch to the clean car. But not so. Since the polluting car is cheap, people would wait for other people to switch to the clean car so that they themselves could drive a cheap car as well as enjoy clean air. Again, the solution in such a case if it comes at all would be excruciatingly slow and ultimately fruitless. When it comes to human nature, no “ism” can prevail.

It’s also interesting that those “socialist” Europeans understand this and have refused to listen to industry leaders who would sacrifice environmental standards for further growth. The United States is still one of the few developed countries in the world who refuses to answer the clarion call of our planet. Again, every libertarian should be bothered by the fact that it does so not just to its own detriment but to that of others, an action that violates basic libertarian beliefs. At the same time, the point about the government conveniently using a crisis of some kind to heavily enforce its regulations on people is very well-taken, and the world has seen too many cases of this. That’s why we need to elect better leaders. But that’s not the same as questioning the concept of government leadership itself, which whether we like it or not, is going to be necessary to solve the global climate crisis. I commiserate with libertarians when they get upset about government intervention for setting environmental standards, but we are unfortunately in one of those stages in human history where we have put ourselves in a straitjacket. We have left ourselves with few other options. This is not the best solution. It may not even be a good one, but it may be the only one.

Finally, let me say that I am in complete support of libertarians’ suspicion of government. Government certainly consists of human beings who constantly invest in their self interests. It would be folly to assume that such people are altruistic. Therefore there is no doubt that we must constantly be on our guard. Having a government in power is like constantly being in a fencing game. As Jefferson famously said “The price of liberty is eternal vigilance” and we would all do well to keep it in mind. But the “vigilance” part of Jefferson’s quote also crucially extends to the process of electing government officials, which seems to have failed us. Much is said about not trusting the “wise men” who move about in the highest echelons of power and make decisions for their flock. But we should also remember that these men were originally deemed to be “wise” because they were chosen on the basis of the wisdom of the people. If the wisdom of the people had truly prevailed, these men would be wise indeed. So perhaps, instead of constantly laying blame on them, we should simply try to make sure that we always breathe and sustain wisdom in the process of selecting them. I don’t think government is the problem. I think it’s the process of creating and fostering it. And it should certainly be possible to improve on that.

WHERE ARE THE LIBERTARIANS?

To be honest, I am disappointed by libertarians’ lack of reaction against this recent profligate spending from the public coffer. I strongly feel that the libertarians need to come out and condemn the government’s 200 billion dollar bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It’s money straight out of our pockets, and out of our butler’s and tailor’s.

STANDING ON SHOULDERS

So there’s a post by Atanu Dey that was bound to be written and discussed by someone: about Mukesh Ambani’s 2 billion dollar home in the middle of a city where so many earn less than 2 dollars a day. Is it “morally” justified? Isn’t it like a slap in the face of the poor and unfortunate? Are you a socialist if you say it is?

While I have left a comment on the post, I want to repeat it here and expand a little on it because it involves an incident that I personally find quite revealing and humbling and which comes to my mind often.

The point is about measuring the factors that contribute to our success in society. Barack Obama once asked none other than Warren Buffet (now “again” the richest man in the world) why he gave so much money to charitable causes. And Buffet basically said that while he certainly owes his success in part to his own talents, it was made possible only because he lived in a society that educated him, that supported the application of his particular talents. In another time and place where physical strength may have been valued, Buffet says he could have ended up a wild animal’s dinner. Since society helped him not become that, the least he could do in his opinion is to repay some of this favor back. Now Buffet could be easily dismissed by the cynical as one of those stock characters who can afford to speak flippantly about money because they have a lot of it. But Buffet is not just a talker; he is a man who has famously walked the talk by giving away a truly substantial part of his fortune to the Gates foundation. This is also the same Buffet, by the way, who still drives his old Lincoln Town Car.

It’s one of the most humbling stories I have heard and makes a lot of sense in my opinion. Nobody should claim that you should be told how to spend your own wealth, but as I see it, the number of people who are steeped in hubris, thinking that they owe their success only to their innate qualities, is more than I would be comfortable with. In fact I am constantly reminded of this opinion precisely because I keep on running into people who think that because they earn a hundred thousand dollars by the time they are 28, they must be the smartest people in the world. They forget the simple fact that they get paid so much because they live in a society that values their particular talents. In another time it could have been very different, say when manual labor was much valued. In that time they could have easily exchanged places with those who they may pity today. I don’t want to pretend I am taking some moral high ground here, but I am genuinely puzzled by the opinions of these otherwise intelligent and concerned folks.

So does that mean they don’t “deserve” that money and that it’s their “moral responsibility” to share it with others. Of course not. The libertarian argument is in my opinion irrelevant here, and the “argument from socialist leanings” is not even on the same page. It’s not about whether you should have the “right” to do this; that’s obvious. The argument is about recognizing the context in which you and everyone else lives their lives. So much is made of capitalism that it is convenient to forget that capitalism also involves wealth generation by people, which in turn involves people being able to participate in the free market system. Sadly many governments around the world don’t help people achieve this and in many cases downright stifle their ability to do so. But giving back to society in one way or another is another way in which you enable these people to rise above their situation. One can argue about the exact method of giving back; simple charity may not do much, but that’s why many choose to help people actually generate the ability to participate in the free market system, through simple actions such as educating them and assisting them in the fight against infectious diseases. And that helps sustain the kind of society which makes you enjoy your wealth and prosper. No matter how much we may think otherwise, just like Newton’s scientific children we are standing on the shoulders of the giant that’s society.

Bill Gates knows this and acts on it. So does Warren Buffet. And the last time I checked, they were not “socialists”

LIBERTARIANISM AND THE FDA

Chetan alerted me to this video of Milton Friedman where the stalwart economist introduces libertarian ideas and basically counters every matter advocating government intervention that the questioner puts in front of him.

At one point, the questioner asks him if having the FDA around does not prevent tragedies like the Thalidomide tragedy, where it was the FDA that kept a drug with devastating effects away from the US market on the grounds of insufficient testing. Friedman’s answer is not surprising to those who are familiar with libertarianism; he says that it is in the interests of the FDA to delay the approval of drugs for fear of backlash from ill-approved drugs. The solution? Again predictable; let the companies themselves do the testing. They won’t dare to get a drug with harmful side-effects into the market because then their share-holders will be displeased and they might even go bankrupt from all that class action legislation.

Does this actually work? When I told this second argument to a veteran in the drug industry who has many years of experience with both the business and science of making drugs, without batting an eyelid he answered, “That simply does not happen. For companies, most out-of-court settlements constitute a fraction of the profit they make from drugs. For a company, bringing a product with a side-effect on the market does not carry a very great risk, because any cost they may have to pay in the form of fines or court settlements usually is much lesser than the profit which they make”. Plus, exactly why are shareholders going to bring down the company? Surely not because of morality. Did shareholders stop buying Union Carbide products because of Bhopal? They only care what the shares look like. For a giant drug company, a temporary setback does not affect the long-term value of their shares. Even if such a company loses a few customers temporarily, it can gain many more customers in the future.

So Friedman’s contention that customers will regulate the company (or rather, that the free market will regulate itself) may work in principle, but it is hard to imagine it working in practice. And there are examples in the real world where it has not worked. And not just with drug companies. Let’s take companies which have extensively polluted the environment. Have these companies stopped their practices because of litigation? No, in most cases they have simply paid the fine and moved on with the same practices. That’s the point; for companies, everything is a business decision, and many times paying punitive damages is much less expensive than changing manufacturing practices or testing drugs extensively.

This is the problem I have with some of these libertarian ideas; while I agree on many points with libertarians, to me their solutions often sound theoretical and many times generalised, with real-life examples providing plenty of counterexamples. Now when you point out these counterexamples, they will say “Yes, but you wouldn’t have had these counterexamples in a perfect, libertarian world” But that’s the point; the world is not perfect, even if we should continue to strive to make it so. In the real world, not everyone has property rights to shield themselves from corporate malpractices. Many people simply don’t have the financial and political muscle to go to court against corporations. I always cite the example of Pacific Islanders facing sea-level rise from climate change. How many oil companies will they sue and how? And will the oil companies change their practices even then? The problem I have with some libertarian views is that they are extreme; they assume that government in any and every form is evil in any and every time, and that it is anethema to even think of any degree of government regulation. With governments of the kind that we have in India, I can sympathize with their viewpoint. But isn’t there a second perspective here? Until their perfect libertarian world materialises, sometimes to me government regulation seems like the only option, even if it may be a necessary evil. We should certainly strive to give everyone property rights, but until that can happen we need to have some way of preventing catastrophe and disasters. Moreover, there are bad government agencies and good government agencies. Wouldn’t a moderate standpoint be to advocate increasing the efficiency of some government agencies rather than simply doing away with them? Why doesn’s anyone talk about improving systems rather than advocating getting rid of them by default?

I feel sad because libertarians often take an extreme stance and espouse a catch-all viewpoint. There is one fundamental rule of debate or analysis; don’t adopt an extreme viewpoint, because then you automatically open yourself up to criticism. But in this case, I would go a step further and say that with their extreme viewpoints, libertarians force others who agree with much of what they say to become their critics.

P.S. The really galling question is, what do you do if government itself is more evil than anyone else? That’s a tough nut to crack. Who do the people turn to then?

“WHEN WE SACRIFICE LIBERTY FOR SECURITY, WE LOSE BOTH”: Ron Paul is a slam dunk

In the republican debate yesterday, Ron Paul was nothing less than brilliant. In my opinion, there is absolutely nobody in this country, republican or democrat, who can deliver such cogent and absolutely on-the-mark arguments for national security and against the war in Iraq, arguments which are also informed by a mature understanding of US history, that I find absolutely wanting in every other politician. When Paul was challenged by the weasly and cowardly Chris Wallace who wanted to score cheap points, his reply was thundering, almost prophetic-sounding. And just hear his simple argument about how it is the responsibility of airlines to protect their passengers and prevent 9/11 type attacks, and how delegating it to them rather than the government and allowing their officials to possess guns could have possibly prevented 9/11. Just watch him.

Unfortunately, people in this country are still swayed by rhetoric, and abstract feel-good notions such as “honor” and “freedom”, both of which ironically they are rapidly losing. I think that Iraq unfortunately is becoming a big emotional prestige point for parents who have lost their sons and daughters in the failed conflict; they will just not accept that their children died in vain (and that too due to no fault of theirs) and more alarmingly, now keep thinking that the only way their children’s sacrifices can be justified is if the US stays in Iraq. They are also misled into thinking, as one bereaved mother was, that the US is actually going to become more safe if they continue fighting there. This is a notion that seriously needs to be dispelled because it is a path straight towards devastation.

Ron Paul is probably the only person who understands this thoroughly and has the guts to say it aloud in public. Given his very clear libertarian stance, I can almost bet that he is also pro-abortion and pro-gay marriage, both of which are fundamentally issues about individual freedom and rights. But given the currents of irrational thought and puritanical nonsense widespread in the nation, it is not surprising that he does not say it publicly. It is the unfortunate destiny of this country that he will almost certainly not be nominated as the republican candidate.

Addendum: As much as I immensely admire Paul’s stand on the war, I find his opposition to abortion and gay marriage bizarre and disconcerting (notwithstanding the fact that he may be taking these stances only for pleasing his republican electorate), and I also find him in danger of running afoul of his libertarian principles in these matters. For example, he says that the libertarian approach towards banning abortion is sensible because you are respecting the right of the foetus. Even if we buy this argument (which is tenuous at most for a month old foetus), what about the right of the mother to choose? What does the libertarian ethic say about that? I also don’t agree with his absolutist sounding positions on gun control (quite apart from letting airline officials carrying them). As for stem cell research, he cleverly skirts the discussion towards taxpayer dollars. The point is, and I have said this before, I don’t agree with a libertarian approach to anything and everything, but in some matters, it hits the nail on the head.

The real problem of course is that there is not a single candidate, Republican or Democrat, who I find ideal to be President. I wish we had technology that could pick the good qualities from each candidate and create a chimerical president.

WHAT DO WE WANT?

When I was in Texas visiting my friends recently, I visited the George Bush (the more decent one) presidential library. After looking at a nice, detailed replica of the White House, with the interior meticulously duplicated, we were about to walk out, when the lady at the desk asked me if I wanted “a letter personally signed by President Bush, in which he answers a question”.
I thought, how uninteresting, because I could be sure I am going to get pre-scripted answers from a machine where you type the question and then get it answered. I chose one of the most cliche questions, “What do you think is the most pressing problem that America faces”? Out came a prewritten sheet of paper with a copy of el Presidente’s signature. It was a nice touch, but the answer was so cliche (dealing with eradicating inequality or something) that I have forgotten the details.

So it is surprising that, on the eve of Independence Day, I find myself having a rather simple and unequivocal answer for the question, “What is the biggest problem that India faces?”. There are of course many answers, but I find myself easily cutting through the thicket of these and finding the one.

Lack of individual freedom.

A look at newspapers in the last five years should be enough to see why this is the case. We pride ourselves on being a free democracy, and still are being stifled at the individual’s level through many means. Individuals don’t have property rights, individuals cannot honestly start a business without glitches or without politicians and contracters demanding a share of the profits, individuals cannot criticise the government without receiving threats and getting censored, individuals cannot seek quick and easy redress in courts and in the corridors of the law, and contrary to outsiders’ belief, individuals don’t have the freedom of speech to openly say something (including personal opinons on “controversial” matters) without fear of retribution from corrupt politicians and their hired goons, and at the least, face covert or overt censorship tacitly supported by the government. If the threats don’t exist in the books, they at least informally exist over the telephone. And in spite of being a secular country, individuals really don’t have the freedom of religion, and they don’t have the freedom to criticise other religions. In the muck that covers many of our poverty-ridden streets, the most dominant element is the individual.

Mobs, on the other hand, as well-described in a post here, have almost every possible freedom. In India, freedom of religion means the freedom by religious mobs to cause untold destruction to public property and individual well-being while the police stand by. That means that by inference, it emphatically does not allow for the freedom to practice one’s religion without interference. No individual freedom to criticise religion exists, and all such criticism, no matter how mild, is arm-twisted by religious leaders to justify sending in their goons and attacking the individual.

If we were a dictatorship, this stifling of individual freedom would be obvious and there would be outcry. But in India, the stifling of individual rights always is draped by resorting to a show of democratic ideals. Without individual freedom, the word “freedom” loses its meaning, and in our country has thus lost a lot of its meaning. And this false show of freedom that we tout makes the problem even more serious, and the situation more dangerous. Because in a police state, everyone knows there is a problem. But in a country which lives under a veneer of freedom, identifying and solving such problems is much harder (although at least identifying them seems to become tragically easier every day)

I am not an unabashed fan of libertarianism, and I find some of its tenets untenable. I always wondered why Indian libertarians are always so vocal and passionate in their writings and arguments. But I realised that the reason of course is that libertarianism is first and foremost about individual freedom, and I realised that India perhaps more than any other country (with the obvious exceptions of totalitarian-like states) needs a desperate dose of libertarianism, mostly because of the, how shall I put it euphemistically, unusually inefficient government here. Right now, that dose is woefully missing. The government still decides what is good for us. It still takes away farmers’ lands because it thrives on the lack of individual property rights that the farmers don’t have. It censors movies and allows gangs of political goons to burn theaters, because it does not give a damn about what we as individuals and adults should be free to decide in terms of what we want to and not want to watch. It has accepted definitions of what it considers to be “Indian culture”, and will uphold them by forcing them on individuals who might want to live their own culture. By implementing archaic bans on homosexuality, it does not even think of people’s personal lifestyle preferences that do not intrude on others’ privacy. The Indian government is a true champion in prosecuting victimless crimes, among other things.

I realised that it is not without reason that libertarians especially in India have agonized so much about an absence of their principles. I believe that government action is necessary in some sectors, but in our country, government action in almost every aspect has become unbearable and despicably misimplemented. And the most significant way in which this government makes its action unbearable is by interfering with the freedom of the individual. Some government in my opinion is always better than no government at all, but increasingly and more easily it seems to me that no government at all is eminently better than the Indian government. I may argue with libertarians about which taxes are necessary, and whether government action is the only suitable one for preempting environmental pollution and global warming, but when it comes to criticising the beast that is the Indian government, I am right there with them.

Ironically, in the few cases where even libertarians agree that government should levy taxes, such as law and order and public construction, the Indian government is so inefficient as to give good reason for losing faith even in those basic beliefs. I will be very uncomfortable if law and order is privatised, but given the way that our government implements law and order (or rather does not implement it), I am slowly starting to find privatisation of even law and order a comforting thought not just in my moments of madness. In the list of lesser and greater evils, the Indian government is wallowing at the top end of the scale in many respects. Again, I am not an unequivocal advocate of privatisation, and economist Kaushik Basu says that instead of privatisation of all services, the government should make its existing services competitive with private services. While this seems perfectly reasonable, given government inefficiency in even basic matters, this action seems to be an untenable dream. And once again, mostly because the government does not want to respect individual voices that demand better things for themselves.

So on the eve of our independence, in reply to the question, “What is the biggest problem facing our country today”, probably for the first time, I could cut through the complexities of our problems, and instead of saying “Hmmm…it’s hard to say which one is the most troublesome…there are just so many of them”, I find it refreshing that I can give a quick one line answer largely free of ambiguities.

Lack of individual freedom.

And I find it depressing and alarming, precisely because I could find this answer so easily.

P.S. This is a tag…for everyone who reads this blog. “What is the biggest problem that India faces?”

P.S. 2: In general, I have to say that I mistrust both corporations and government, but some corrupt corporations are at least efficient, especially so in India!