The Longest Comment In The Indian Blogosphere draws a parallel between the left and libertarians. It is not a particularly original parallel; many others have drawn it before. He is saying that just as the left was saying that “true” communism has not been really tried anywhere, it cannot be said to have failed, we libertarians are saying that just as there is no “true” free market anywhere, it cannot be said to have failed. I don’t think that parallel works, and here is why.
You go to Dr. Lefty with an ailment. His reputation is that he prescribes a very tough regimen. Very very tough. So you go upto him and sure enough, he gives you a long list of dietary restrictions, exercise routines and medicines. He also says: “Unless you follow this regimen exactly, you have not really tried out this regimen”. So you ask him what the success rate has been. He says that he doesn’t know. Why?
“It has never really been tried”.
“Really?”
“Yes really. A lot of people attempted to follow this regimen, but they all failed to follow it.”
“What happened to them?”
“They all died painful and horrible deaths.”
“Oh!”
“But that is not the fault of the regimen. If it were followed fully, it would have a 100% success ratio. But no one followed it. For example, I prescribe 50 pushups a day. But that guy did only 49 and gave up on the last. Naturally, he died the next day. The problem was not that the regimen was a failure, but that it was not followed properly”
If you are sane, I’d wager that you won’t be concerned about the semantic difference betwen “not following the regimen fully” and “following the regimen and yet failing”. You will get out double-quick and go to Dr. Libertarian, who also has a reputation for prescribing really tough medication. He says:
“You have to follow the regimen exactly or else it won’t work fully”
“How many people manage to follow it fully?”
“No one.”
“Huh?”
“Yes, no one manages to follow it fully, but there are people who’ve reached 80-90%, and they have got 80-90% of the benefits.”
“What if I follow it less, say 50-60%?”
“Oh, then you get part of the benefits, but with side-effects. You may fall ill, get a backache, etc. It depends on which 60% you manage to follow.”
“There is a Dr. Regulator who claims that though your regimen works at 80-90%, if it is followed 100%, then it will fail spectacularly.”
“Why does he say that?”
“He is drawing parallels with the discredited Dr. Lefty, who always said that his treatment has not really been tried, even as he was being led away in chains.”
“How is that parallel valid? Dr. Lefty’s treatment fails spectacularly at any percentage below 100, and no one has managed to reach 100. On the other hand, my treatment does you good even if carried out partly. The only point of disagreement is that I say that it will work 100% if you follow the regimen 100%, while Dr. Regulator says that going 100% is dangerous. He might be right, but there isn’t enough evidence either way. Using a parallelism with Dr. Lefty makes no sense whatsoever in proving Dr. Regulator’s point.”
There you go again obfuscating instead of offering any tangible defense. Grow up kid. Get a life..
Off topic:
Can I know your email address ?
Interesting analogy. Unfortunately, you are being disingenuous.
You say any state not following 100% leftist policies fails. On what basis do you say this may I ask? Kerala follows 50-70% leftist policies. The Scandinavian countries follow a lot of leftist policies. Honestly now, how spectacularly have they failed? In terms of human development index these states rank way up.
Similarly you say that states that follow Libertarian prescriptions 50-70% get 50-70% results with side effects. Pray tell me how can collapse of an economy and negative growth in Latin American countries be classified as a mere side effect? The monopolies and oligopolies are real in Russia and Central Asia. There too Libertarian prescriptions have been applied upto 50-70%. But then in your world we are not supposed to call a spade a spade. We ought to call them side effects. I will remember that when I argue with you henceforth.
And mind you I am not arguing for Leftist positions at all. I am totally in favour of free markets, but with some qualifications. I was merely pointing out the hypocrisies in your positions and your intellectual arrogance that prevents you from weighing the merits of the other’s arguments. I was seeking a little bit of humility the next time you condescend to someone arguing against your positions. Not everyone is gullible or stupid enough not to see through your selective examples, caricatures of the left, and terming everyone disagreeing with you as bleeding heart socialists. And all this energy expended so that you can be smug sticking to your point and take a high moral ground.
I am not saying that. It was you who compared the hardcore libertarian with the hardcore leftist. It was you who has the hardcore leftist saying that the reason the soviet union etc. failed is because they did not achieve true communism. You compare that with the hardcore libertarian who says that the residual problems in capitalist states is because they haven’t achieved capitalism fully. I was just pointing out that this particular comparison is invalid.
Just out of curiosity and honestly no sarcasm intended here. Is there really such a thing as hardcore Libertarian and moderate Libertarian etc.? From what I had read, Lihertarians have a set of beliefs such as individual rights property rights etc. Anyone who calls himself that, subscribes to them. The set of beliefs are such that, in my view it is difficult to grade them. For instance how does one say I am for limited individual rights? I mean I had heard that you can be a civil libertarian or a economic libertarian etc. But this is the first time I have come across something like hardcore and non-hardcore Libertarian. If I am wrong in thinking this, please correct me.I would be happy to know that such gradations can exist.
In my earlier comment I have pointed out through examples that the comparison in indeed valid. If you still disagree its upto you. Both our comments are here. Let the readers decide for themselves.
Fair enough, a moderate libertarian is someone who holds moderate capitalist beliefs. That does not alter my argument. As to your examples, I must point out that compared to the millions of deaths that occurred when a state gets close to following communist policies 100%, a “collapse” of the economy” when a state follows 50-60% capitalist policies qualifies as a side-effect.
Secondly, the argument against the hardcore leftist is that the harder a state tries to achieve true communism, the greater its chances of complete collapse. So one has to take on faith the assertion that if it reaches 100%, the state will magically transform itself into a workers’ paradise. That is clearly not the case for libertarians. When a state manages to follow our prescriptions, it generally does very well. So it is not as much a stretch to say that if it followed all our prescriptions, it will do exceedingly well. We might still be wrong, but just using the leftist-libertarian comparison will not get you anywhere.
Well this post and replies has psyched me out totally. 100% communism/100 capitalism!!! I think there are failures everywhere and some bright points too. Thankfully we have a system called as Democrocy, which lets people choose between one of them at a regular interval.
Hi Chetan,
I have seen that people point out to the “economic failure” of Latin American countries as evidence that capitalism can be disastrous. Well, there have always been cycles of booms and busts in many capitalist economies – many people even think it is a basic feature of capitalism. As you will know, many ‘leftist’ policies were implemented in the US to mitigate the effects of such a bust. But in all cases that I know of, the bust has been really small (though very painful) compared to the boom. Look at Argentina for example,
http://globalis.gvu.unu.edu/indicator_detail.cfm?country=AR&indicatorid=19
and the current data is here
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient-ff&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGGL,GGGL:2005-09,GGGL:en&q=argentina+per+capita
I have another comment about your examples (not particularly related to Ravikiran’s post or your stand on Ravikiran’s post). People, again, always point to scandinavian countries or kerala for following leftist policies and doing very well. I think these are not the right examples for the whole of India. The aim of these scandinavian countries is not growth, but stability. Their growth rate has not exceeded 3% for a really long time. Moreover, their model is quite under threat recently. If India’s aim is growth, then I would say that following 50-70% of leftist policies like these countries will constitute spectacular failure. Kerala is a really unique situation – I hope you see that Kerala is not particularly doing well because of their leftist policies.
The point I am trying to make is – context is important. I don’t know if you are a software engineer.. but I am.
If (our aim is growth)
1. following 50-70% of leftist policies is disaster (Eg. Scandinavian countries)
2. following more capitalism is increasingly beneficial (Eg. Latin American countries)
else
1. following leftist policies guarantee stability //there are many qualifications to this
2. following capitalist policies lead to boom-bust cycles.
3. We don’t care about lifting people out of poverty.
I have a feeling that you and Ravikiran are arguing from within different if conditions. The underlying conflict is in not knowing the causal link between GDP growth and poverty reduction.
Disclaimer: These are my own views and not that of ‘cartel’ or anybody else.
Hi Vishal,
Since there are failures everywhere, how about alternating between democracy and theocracy (and maybe even monarchy) every five years? Sorry if I got a bit snarky.
Eswaran: I agree with you about them not being right examples for India. I am not suggesting we follow what they did. What is the use of 100% literacy if majority of your youth goes jobless, as in kerala? I understand that. When I referred to Scandinavian countries, my intention was to let people know that leftist models are not all on the dark side as Libertarians would like them to believe. There can be many things that we can learn through them especilly about checks and balances, accountability and transparency of the governments. If you take time to wade through all the bull shitting I have done in my own post and concentrate on jist of it (which I admit is difficult given the rant that it is) you will realise that I am seeking scepticism and a modicum of respect for the other side. In theory, and through logic it is obvious to me, personally, that free markets may (ok will!) work, there will be good things that we will lose out in the process but I realise the flux of culture and all that.
But unfortunately the perfect set of conditions won’t ever come about in a democracy like India, where there will be (healthy in my view) opposition. So instead of pointing out how niche markets may develop to satisfy certain consumer demands, how we need to respect choice of people working at Wal-Mart etc. why not argue starting from the premise that conditions will be imperfect. If someone has a problem with this and I am sure many here will have, reading further would be futile. Let us just agree to disagree.
Ok. Now under imperfect conditions, how do we go about ensuring the best possible deal while avoiding the pitfalls that markets working under imperfect conditions create? There are many problems that crop up. And these same problems are seen by the majority as failure of markets. Not every voter understands economics. Like the bloggers here and Gaurav in one of his comments on Sonia Falerio’s story on Vidharbha cotton farmers rightly point out, that giving a left leaning emotional response is not the solution to many of our woes. But at the same time we are humans. Just as greed and self-interest governs much of our behaviour and are positive influences for the society, emotions and empathy are also a part of us. To ask someone to be completely rational in face of something that is emotionally moving is to ask too much. In such situation voters themselves don’t bother if tax payer money is spent on unworkable solutions. For that I call for qualified support for free markets in certain (read very few) areas where markets may be prone to be (please dont make an issue about the use of this word)disruptive or may be hard to develop leaving significant proportion of the population unhappy. In a democracy there is a fear that people will fall back on leftist policies by default. And it a better incentive to dole out a few leftist carrots if one can buy support for most other free market policies.
For this particular reason, I think, from a practical perspective it’s fine if there is some power to the government. I have a strong issue with the libertarian scorn for governments. Healthy scepticism and doubt is one thing but characterising governments as nothing but an embodiment of evil is altogether another. This is the reason why I made it a point to call attention to the Scandinavian countries. These guys have ensured good accountability and transperancy through creative measures. As I have said in my comment if there is a problem with quality of teachers in public schools, make their salary commensurate to their performance. Make the patients visiting doctors fill out evaluation forms and link the salary of the doctor to that. If one closely studies Scandinavian systems we may glean something interesting that can be replicated in India. But all our policy makers just give examples of Hong Kong and hypothetical free markets which serves no purpose apart from bolstering their argument. Just because they are welfare states, I don’t think it is a qualification enough for us to dismiss them altogether as bleeding heart types. Now there are many here who have an issue with government competing with private enterprise, which is what most of you will be thinking about right now. But I and many of the aam janata is fine with it. They have seen the improvements in BSNL VSNL and MTNL by forcing them to compete in the market and I think most of them don’t share those nuanced concerns of economists. But by making a shrill argment for selling of profit making PSU’s (a good measure in my opinion) you are losing out on support as people tend to think you favour multinationals making money.instead of the government. (I know about the problems such as Manjunath’s death, but I think just allowing competition would solve that.)
My problem is with the jingoistic (not sure that captures the sentiment) Libertarian claim that one finds on Cafe Hayek and other Libertarian blogs. If you read Cafe Hayek, a common sentence Don (I forgot the spelling of his name) mentions is about how in 200 years there hasn’t been any other set-up that has worked. This is load of bull. Also it has to do with what a person characterises as ‘worked.’ For the capitalist the goals are different and for the communists they are different.
All I am saying is people in the blogosphere understand that what India needs in freedom from stranglehold of licence raj. So when any blogger has a minor quibble about markets there is no need to make an hullabaloo and call him anti-development, bleeding heart, et. al. Just as healthy scepticism of government needs to be encouraged. I see nothing wrong in healthy scepticism of markets. For all you know there might be another Adam Smith or Karl Marx who through this scepticism may find a better system for human development. By focusing on theories you guys lose sight of the ends.
I can provide numerous examples but I think if I continue this will turn into another 5000 word comment. Please read this postof mine and you would come to know where I come from on this. My preference for democracy and plurality of opinions far outweighs my respect for markets.
Excellent analogy. And very well put too.
Ugh. And what exactly is Chetan trying to say?
He makes nebulous points; acknowledges they are nebulous;
and still maintains in the same breath that libertarians need
to be less condescending and open-minded etcetera.
If anything, reading his comments makes me more condescending.
I think Ravikiran has gleaned most of the actual points from his
longwinded prose and addressed them.
Is there any other point that Chetan wishes to address other than orthogonal things
like humility and what not?
Look at his argument in prev. comment: democracy and govt. will not allow fully free markets. So some leftism is essential as a dole to people.
WHAT ARE you trying to say by that? Do you think Ravikiran did not know that?
WHERE DID HE SAY OTHERWISE?
How to bring about an implementation of free markets is ORTHOGONAL to
talking about the benefits of free markets.
Similarly, you talk of companies flouting the rule of law and how it is bad.
When or where did ANY of the Cartelians saying it is good?????
One of the prime aspects which libertarians discuss is how to establish a rule of law.
With accountability and incentives. Instead Chetan goes on a tirade about how this entails govt. is essential and so on.
Ugh. Such backdoor lefitst aplogists; with an overwhelming conceit about
how ethical and openminded they are; make my blood boil! Not because of your
conceit; but because of the resultant actions which end up harming me, and the nation.
Such backdoor lefitst aplogists; with an overwhelming conceit about
how ethical and openminded they are; make my blood boil! Not because of your
conceit; but because of the resultant actions which end up harming me, and the nation.
I should add this is one of the prime attractions of libertarianism. You’re shielded to a greater degree from the stupidity and conceits of your fellow-men.
seven_times_six:
Cool down. First of all that comment was addressed to Eswaran, and not Ravikiran. Did Ravikiran ever say that etc. was never the issue here. My comments are directed at Libertarians in general not towards Ravikiran in particular. And from the begining itself this debate was never about the benefits of free markets at all. Please read before you bang on the keyboard.
We function in a democracy and people make their decision based on their intelligence. If you are so confident about your theory being correct then all you have to do is trust the readers to follow it. Why are you afraid of my conceit influencing others if according to you your version of truth and world view is so crystal clear? At least show some spine. I don’t think even your Libertarian friends might approve of this behaviour. Blogosphere is a good example of a free market and what readers choose to follow is upto them. As a true blue Libertarian you should take it on your chin rather than calling me as someone out to harm the nation. Even if I do end up harming it, it only indicts your own free market situation, which allows a person like me to get away with sophistry. There I said the word. 🙂
Arre yaar where is your proud objectivism? I never knew the Howard Roarks, Dagny Taggarts and Hank Rearden’s of this world were so afraid of Elsworth Tooheys. Tut tut. Ayn Rand might be turning in her grave.
Starting from my long comment till this one I have throughout acknowledged the benefits of the free market. So your self righteous defense was unecessary.
And last but not the least the readers have perfect eyesight so there is no need to have your text in capital letters. You may need highlighting of important points, we don’t.
1. Conceit of leftists affects others through leftist policies of the government that is enforced through governmental force and coercion. Which AFFECTS me.
Talking abt Ayn Rand and proud Objectivists; stoically braving out a majoritarian coercion via leftist policies is not being brave, it is what she called “sanctioning your own victimhood”.
It was precisely such coercion that made Galt go away to Galt’s Gulch in Atlas Shrugged.
2. I’m not saying you’re debating free markets at all. On the contrary, I’m saying you do not have any point to your long-winded prose at all, other than being an apologist for statism.
You’re not comfortable with relinquishing governmental control over peoples, and hence have nebulous statements to make that are nebulous by your own admission. You label this as openmindedness. I label this backdoor leftism/statism.
3. One thing to note is you merrily conflate three different aspects; implementation and properties and benefits; of a system such as a free-market.
Perhaps somebody (Ravikiran/Sauvik?) could start a discussion on some of the implementation aspects of an incentivized RULE OF LAW?
..leftist policies of the government that is enforced through governmental force and coercion. Which AFFECTS me…
ok.. I get what a libertarian is.. The government decisions should never (adversely) affect you..
No.. wait .. I am still confused.. what would be libertarians position be vis-Ã -vis those displaced by the Narmada Dam project..
I am sure the people displaced were ‘affected’.. but was not the standard libertarian view that those opposed to the dam were lefty losers?
Do correct me (gently.. if you please) if I am wrong here..
But I believe in both cases(the leftist policies and the Narmada dam) the government’s policies were supposed to be for the ‘greater good’..
Maybe it would be wise to clarify what exactly is a libertarian.. I thought I was one.. until I found that I don’t agree with most libertarian thought around here..
——————-
Ok.. what is it with Any Rand anyway.. seriously.. I find it hard to believe any well read person would take her seriously.. she does writes entertaining stuff.. But to treat her books as Economics 101?
I was sent this link by the authors of Kautilya.com when I said what I said in the para above in response to one of their posts..
I am not sure why though..
The link was a compilation of criticisms/critiques on Ayn Rand and her works..
http://world.std.com/~mhuben/critobj.html
One of the links is a review of “Atlas Shrugged”.. and is quite hilarious..
http://victoria.tc.ca/int-grps/books/techrev/bkatshrg.rvw
“..Marriage vows in an objectivist church would probably run along the
lines of “Do you promise to attempt to dominate and subdue this woman
until such time as you grow bored?” “Maybe.” “Close enough. And do
you promise to applaud this man’s production until such time as you
find someone with a bigger … corporation?” “Whatever.” “By the
power vested in me by having scammed you guys out of a marriage
license fee, I now pronounce you man and appendage. ..
Some of the writing is guilty of caricaturing Rand’s position.. but I believe it still in a worthy read because the caricatures do help at times get across the naivety of her thought ..
————————–
I have probably taken of on a tangent from the discussion between Ravi and Chetan (who quite admirably has maintained a dispassionate tone in the entire discussion)..
Regards,
the ‘Other’ Reuben
PS: No offence was intended to any.. but I fear, it will be taken anyway..
Chetan you don’t get it – its Ravi’s Blog, if you don’t like it, don’t read it. And Ravikiran carry on – you have been honest enough to admit that you are debating enthusiast, and hence backing your arguements forcefully is but natural to you. Now Chetan, please go get a life – you don’t like his blog, fine. I don’t either. I think its so full of s*** that it makes me think he must have had a bad childhood and rejected in relationships. Just stop commenting so much because its not getting anywhere.
Reuben,
That was a sacrilege you realize , the justice will be swift and merciless. 😉
PS. I do not care what tone anyone has, but then I hardly know anything about economics or logical fallacies
Regards
XJ-4624,
I am not a “debating enthusiast”. I am not a good speaker and I am not good at verbal arguments.
Incidentally, Reuben, the “standard” libertarian position (if there is one) on the Narmada project was that it is wrong to deprive the tribals of their property rights.
Chetan wrote this and no one took him up on that:
Kerala follows 50-70% leftist policies. The Scandinavian countries follow a lot of leftist policies. Honestly now, how spectacularly have they failed? In terms of human development index these states rank way up.
There may be no correlation between the policies and results thereof. That Kerala has done well with regard to development index is in large measure a contribution of expatriate workers from that state. Most educated Keralites have had to go outside of that state to find meaningful employment. These folks (including expats) have remitted a lot of money to that state.
At 60% tax rates (as in most European leftists countries) and long waits in queues to get simple medical treatment, I’d rather not talk about any “success” that European countries have. [Btw, most of them have succeeded due to their spectacular private industries.]
Quizman:
Thanks for pointing that out about Kerala. It may be true. But going by that logic, I can challenge any and every country’s success and its correlation to its economic policies. Then we enter an entirely different realm. I can bring into picture Jared Diamond and all the Guns Germs and Steel sort of theories and what not.
About the Scandinavian countries, I have repeatedly said that I don’t expect us to follow their policy at all. I was pointing out precisely what you said in the last sentence, that they have succeeded due to their spectacular private industries. My point is that this proves that for a private industry to succeed, a non-existing or minimal government is not a pre-condition. Their companies have consistently adapted to changing world scenario and technology without any problems despite high taxes(which I don’t approve of) and regulation. In spite of being welfare states they have retained the flexibility to incorporate new ideas refuting the claim that having a government stifles ideas and makes progress and adaptation difficult. Libertarians always raise this point that even a minimal regulation will lead to fantastic losses, which the success of Scandinavian countries disproves.
Despite this I am not asking for Scandinavian style policies at all. They are not what India needs currently. I merely sought that our antagonism towards their ideology should not preclude us from studying them. We may be able to find something relevant there. While studying about Hong Kong and South Korea, there is nothing wrong in reading about those countries. If nothing else at least you will be able to explain better to dissenters why those policies are an anathema rather than just deriding them and saying we shouldn’t follow their policies “because they are welfare states. period.” A little more reading hurts no one.
Scandinavian capitalism was allowed to flourish only because of the necessities of the Cold War. Now those countries have become too rich and important to be destabilised. But its an ongoing project.
what r the 7 important parellels