Libertarianism and I
Come to think of it, I am very weak on principles. Frankly, I don’t believe in anything so strongly that I can say for sure that my position/stand will never change.
Yes, that should be the fundamental aspect of my thinking that can explain my position on ideologies. My training in mathematics could have contributed a bit but it surely isn’t the major reason. I am obsessed with questioning everything – every principle. The scientific sense of the word “questioning” has quite a positive connotation. But my attitude of questioning everything isn’t entirely positive in life situations when you have to make decisions.
My social weaknesses apart [and reverting back to the point of this write-up], I want to explain my position on ideologies.
I am a very case-by-case person. I react to certain situations in a certain way because I think for that particular case, it sounds about right. For me, ideologies, principles and philosophies can only go so far. They are all by-products of the human weakness to generalize. This approach – however questionable – has helped me resolve conflict situations. Specifically, it has helped me understand the other man’s point. I rarely get to the conundrum – “What he says can’t be right because I’ve always believed this is so”. I’ve either never believed in it or even if I had, it was still open to question. Such realization obviously doesn’t dawn in the heat of the moment. Even if it does, I may choose to be dishonest about it and not admit it. But as an afterthought, my mind is almost always clear. And that’s very valuable to me.
Libertarianism, as a case in point, is an ideology. I don’t subscribe to it just as I do not subscribe to any ideology. However, there are certain ideologies that need to be respected based on the situation in which they are propounded. The Indian economic and social context, for example, demands that the libertarian ideology be given necessary respect. What’s special about the Indian context? I think you know that. It is about the pendulum being biased on one side that to move toward equilibrium, bias on the other side needs to be considered. Mark my words, considered.
However, we need to be clear about what this respect means. Let me say for instance – when making every policy decision, the libertarian what-ifs need to be considered debated and proven to be less effective – before we take any other position and make it policy. If we fail to prove, obviously we pick one of the libertarian what-ifs. That would be my stand. Extending this, I am very receptive when any existing policy/law/rule is questioned based on the libertarian ideology. I don’t dismiss the questioning just because it is the result of an ideology. More importantly, because it is spoken in a context where such thinking is required, I give it the due respect. It is easy to see that this respect is a form of bias; a bias demanded by the context; a bias I think it fully deserves.
In my experiences so far, the main problem for the libertarian ideology in the Indian context comes from one of its fundamentals – presumption of a robust law-and-order framework. In India, as many of you know, the law is still very much an ass. Rule of law is akin to Rama-Rajya, a utopian dream. And without it, many steps towards liberalization [in true libertarian sense] either have had no impact or sometimes even have had negative impact.
The libertarian ideologues, though they know this, aren’t anywhere close to accepting that this is a big enough problem. They have made themselves to believe that the market is so powerful that it will create unwritten laws on its own and force people to behave. I disagree – and I have reasons.
In spite, I still think the concept deserves respect.
So there.
