A true libertarian should, by definition, feel no compulsion to persuade anyone to change his or her beliefs, even if those beliefs are very critical of libertarianism. Libertarianism cannot for this reason either be a reason of state, or of a political party, or even a social movement. If a so-called libertarian philosophy is prescriptive or normative, is it even libertarianism anymore?
Full post...
Thursday, October 1, 2009
On cost-benefit calculations involving more than one person
The trouble with cost-benefit calculations of any kind that involve more than one person is that the person or persons who reap the benefits are not necessarily the same as the persons who bear the costs.
The writer Borges says somewhere that it makes no sense to speak of the total amount of suffering in the world because pain is not calculable. In much the same manner, one can argue that it makes no sense to speak of the cost to society 'as a whole' or the benefit to society 'as a whole' because suffering or benefits do not compute that way. The concept of the total happiness of a society is a similarly silly one.
But, in any case, it is profoundly contradictory for liberals and neoliberals to make cost-benefit arguments about society as a whole, given that they believe in individual self-interest as the fundamental unit of economics, society, politics, etc. If an individual is interested in maximizing his or her self-interest, then he or she will not care, as a rule, about the impact of each of his or her actions on society as a whole. And neoliberals or liberals, by definition, need to defend this position.
Unless one argues that individual self-interest lies in the interest of society as a whole.
But isn't that a socialist argument: the kind of argument to which neoliberals declare themselves unconditionally opposed?
Full post...
The writer Borges says somewhere that it makes no sense to speak of the total amount of suffering in the world because pain is not calculable. In much the same manner, one can argue that it makes no sense to speak of the cost to society 'as a whole' or the benefit to society 'as a whole' because suffering or benefits do not compute that way. The concept of the total happiness of a society is a similarly silly one.
But, in any case, it is profoundly contradictory for liberals and neoliberals to make cost-benefit arguments about society as a whole, given that they believe in individual self-interest as the fundamental unit of economics, society, politics, etc. If an individual is interested in maximizing his or her self-interest, then he or she will not care, as a rule, about the impact of each of his or her actions on society as a whole. And neoliberals or liberals, by definition, need to defend this position.
Unless one argues that individual self-interest lies in the interest of society as a whole.
But isn't that a socialist argument: the kind of argument to which neoliberals declare themselves unconditionally opposed?
Full post...
Sunday, September 27, 2009
The ignorance of the Indian media/ India's most foolish journalist- Arnab Goswami
Jyoti Punwani has an excellent article in The Hoot about the appalling ignorance of the Indian media when it comes to covering the Naxalite movement. The focus of Jyoti's article is the cluelessness exhibited by the Indian media in their hunt for information related to the arrest of Moaist Kobad Gandhy. Jyoti points out that the Indian media simply repeats the police line about Naxalite Maoist arrests, echoing the state narrative of Naxalites as terrorists. As she asks in her article, "is Kobad Ghandy in Tihar Jail only because he writes documents for a banned organization? Doesn't that make him a political prisoner? And shouldn't the media be pointing that out?." Jyoti notes too that the media has not reported that Gandhy is in ill heath and has been denied medical treatment by prison authorities, which, one can argue, constitutes a human rights violation and form of violence and injustice.
Jyoti's article also mentions the reaction of---in my opinion---, India's most foolish journalist, Arnab Goswami, to Gandhy's arrest. Goswami, as is his wont, ranted hysterically about the event, screaming out a list of Gandhy's supposed crimes. This is the same Goswami who had similarly gone beserk about Prashant Bhushan and Arundhati Roy in the context of the terrorist attacks in Bombay in November 2008.
Goswami is a pompous self-important oaf, like many in the NDTV- Star TV mode, who think that they can censor, condemn, and judge all and sundry because they read the news or host a show with pretensions to social relevance. Their ignorance is only matched by their utter lack of awareness about their ignorance.
In a conversation which Goswami moderated about the Shashi Tharoor Twitter controversy, Goswami came across as barely less ignorant than Congress spokesperson Tom Vadakkan. While Vadakkan thought Twitter was an actual person (a lonely man!), Goswami kept calling it 'Tweeter' and compared, incomprehensibly, the Tharoor controversy with Obama's comment on the Kanye West MTV music awards meltdown. And critical comparativist Goswami, for all his pretense of being well-informed, insisted on calling Kayne West 'Kayne' (incidentally, West expresses his annoyance with people who call him Kayne in the original version of 'Diamonds from Sierra Leone').
Disclosure: I know Jyoti from collaborating with her several years ago on a detailed research study of couples in inter-religious marriages, specifically Muslim and non-Muslim marriages, in Bombay.
Full post...
Jyoti's article also mentions the reaction of---in my opinion---, India's most foolish journalist, Arnab Goswami, to Gandhy's arrest. Goswami, as is his wont, ranted hysterically about the event, screaming out a list of Gandhy's supposed crimes. This is the same Goswami who had similarly gone beserk about Prashant Bhushan and Arundhati Roy in the context of the terrorist attacks in Bombay in November 2008.
Goswami is a pompous self-important oaf, like many in the NDTV- Star TV mode, who think that they can censor, condemn, and judge all and sundry because they read the news or host a show with pretensions to social relevance. Their ignorance is only matched by their utter lack of awareness about their ignorance.
In a conversation which Goswami moderated about the Shashi Tharoor Twitter controversy, Goswami came across as barely less ignorant than Congress spokesperson Tom Vadakkan. While Vadakkan thought Twitter was an actual person (a lonely man!), Goswami kept calling it 'Tweeter' and compared, incomprehensibly, the Tharoor controversy with Obama's comment on the Kanye West MTV music awards meltdown. And critical comparativist Goswami, for all his pretense of being well-informed, insisted on calling Kayne West 'Kayne' (incidentally, West expresses his annoyance with people who call him Kayne in the original version of 'Diamonds from Sierra Leone').
Disclosure: I know Jyoti from collaborating with her several years ago on a detailed research study of couples in inter-religious marriages, specifically Muslim and non-Muslim marriages, in Bombay.
Full post...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
