A tale of two quotes

A friend posted this quote on Facebook earlier today:

"Don't walk behind me; I may not lead. Don't walk in front of me; I may not follow. Just walk beside me and be my friend." - Albert Camus

And I was immediately reminded of this quote:

‎"Lead me, follow me, or get out of my way." - George S Patton

To my mind, this sums up the main difference between an egalitarian/ libertarian culture (of the type found in a network of peers) and a patriarchal/ authoritarian one (of the type found in a hierarchy based on power). The question is not about good or bad, or right or wrong - these are moral judgments rooted in the culture one belongs to, and will only affirm the "home" culture. 

Both cultures are equally capable of providing the foundations to build a harmonious society, if all members of that society were to be of the same disposition. Given such homogeneity, even if the economic and political outlook of individuals were to be different, the method of resolving such differences would be clear to all - in one case based on evolution of a consensus (failing which, a majority opinion) through discourse, and in the other, based on the dictates of those who wield power.

However, in our real world both cultures co-exist in space and time (as I'd observed in an old post), albeit in different proportions in different spaces and different times. And that is why we will always have deep divisions arising out of these two very different cultures. Our best bet would be to look at the direction in which the resultant vector (weighted by the population of each of these two cultures) points at a given time, within a given society. And that means periodic negotiations leading to a moderation of conflicting views, on a continuous basis. 

Tough work but such is life.

Posted via email from HyperActiveX's (Pre)Posterous Posts

Grammar of Kakistocracy

With Anna Hazare and co. "joining politics", a major debate appears to have been settled. 

Over the last year or so, conniving politicians have tried every trick in the book, at all possible levels and from all possible quarters, ranging from the basest brute force attacks to the most sophisticated intellectual criticism, to derail "team Anna" and their agenda. This alone is an indication of the kind of threat Hazare et al. posed to the smug kakistocracy that controls this country. And this in turn is a vindication of the vital role of protests in a vibrant democracy. Hazare and co.'s movement was always political - all protests are - but because of their naivete, they have been manipulated into turning partisan. Their critics are now jumping with glee, falling all over themselves with "See? We told you so" messages and wisecracks. 

There's a place for protest in every democracy, and Anna and his network were doing a fine job. Though I did not agree with everything they said, they enjoyed my support for their central cause - of fighting corruption through peaceful protests. Would I support the political party they are going to form? I doubt it. Their core competency was protest, not governance. I won't be surprised if they were to suffer a massive defeat at the hustings (they may even lose their deposit) and from then on be relegated to a footnote in history. What started with a bang last April, I am quite certain, will end with a whimper. 

Corrupt politicians and bureaucrats are already rejoicing, because they've managed to neutralize the single major threat to their control over the status-quo. They can now return to business as usual and continue with their rent-seeking modus operandi, unencumbered by protests. Think-tankers and policy wonks, funded or supported by the powers that be in some way or other, are already thrilled that they've managed to "expose the hidden fascist agenda" of these humble protesters. (Remember the "Grammar of Anarchy" argument?) They can now return to their echo chambers and continue their cerebral masturbation, undistracted by the challenge of finding fault with the reform proposals put forward by a bunch of rubes who dared to challenge their brahminical authority as problem-solvers to the country.

Meanwhile the nation suffers a huge loss. Kakistocracy wins. Again.

Posted via email from HyperActiveX's (Pre)Posterous Posts

Liberty, Equality and Free Markets

Is Liberty more important than Equality? Or is it the other way around? There seem to be many debates lately that eventually boil down to having to choose one over the other. To my mind, this is a false choice. Agreed, Liberty is a great concept. But should it be enjoyed only by those who demand it most vociferously? Or by everybody? 

To anyone who understands and embraces the idea of Liberty, it should be obvious that it is inclusive in nature, that it applies to all in equal measure. Equality is implicit in Liberty. Any interpretation to the effect that some (do, or should) enjoy more or greater freedoms than others is a fallacy. People who (claim to) champion Liberty -- who quote Patrick Henry's "Give me liberty or give me death" at the drop of a hat -- but see Equality as a threat to Liberty, are the ones who want Liberty exclusively for themselves and their kind. And are therefore not true to the very ideal they cherish, the very cause they uphold. True believers in Liberty should therefore strive for greater Equality.

To strident advocates of Free Markets, who (ostensibly) understand and embrace its core principles, it should be obvious that Free Markets are inclusive in nature: the more the players the freer the markets. Exclusive markets are not free, and Free Markets are not exclusive. Where there is unequal access to markets, there will be less participants -- such markets will be less liquid, price discovery will be less efficient, transaction costs will be higher. By not removing entry barriers (or worse still, by erecting artificial entry barriers) to markets, they betray the very ideal they cherish, the very cause they uphold. True believers in Free Markets should therefore strive for equal access opportunity for all.

Posted via email from HyperActiveX's (Pre)Posterous Posts

Post Script to Minor Observation #9

Apropos of my previous post, here're a couple of things I'd like to add:

First, to off-post/ off-line questions about why "A level playing field ...[blah]... is the only true path to progress", I have this to say: consider the impact on science, commerce and the arts, if the human capital of a couple of billion people were to be unleashed - a potential energy (which is currently locked up and underdeveloped due to malnutrition/ poor health and lack of access to a decent education and basic infrastructure) going kinetic. Just think about it. That's all.

Second, as an afterthought, I'd like to add a fourth reason to the three I listed: 

4. Belief (that "it is what it is", and attempting to change it is either a travesty or just plain futile). 

The belief that it is a travesty is an extension of Puritanical thought, but is not limited to Puritans alone. There are many in the Eastern hemisphere whose upbringing might have had nothing to do with Puritanism (i.e. the religious denomination) per se but who are Puritans all the same. 

Regardless, there is a belief that the right approach is to not level the playing field, but instead, to "make good" through eleemosynary acts. Quite often, this turns out to be insidious as reason #3 (Deliberation) albeit for different reasons. Except in cases where all that caritas manifests in the form of building institutions that work towards long term improvements in infrastructure, education, health-care etc. and towards putting all that within reach of those that don't have access to it presently.

Posted via email from HyperActiveX's (Pre)Posterous Posts

Minor Observation #9

Most people in privileged positions are not inclined to be in favor of what is commonly referred to as a "level playing field". (Yeah, I know, sounds clichéd, but my other option is to indulge in some form of sesquipedalianism.)

This could be because of:

1. Ignorance (not knowing exactly how uneven the playing field is)

2. Apathy (not caring how uneven the playing field is)

3. Deliberation (specifically wanting to keep it uneven)

Of these, the third is the most pernicious. It arises from the insecurity that such people have -- that they may not actually deserve the position of privilege they currently enjoy. If they were secure in the knowledge that they did, then they should be confident enough to face the competition brought on by a level playing field. In fact they ought to welcome it.

A level playing field is important not because it is the morally correct thing to have (which it may well be), but because it is the only true path to progress. 

Posted via email from HyperActiveX's (Pre)Posterous Posts