Terrorism and Democracy

I'm afraid I didn't quite get what you propose then. If democracy is bad, what exactly are you suggesting to deal with the terrorist menace? A military dictatorship like in Pakistan? You haven't proposed a credible solution.

KM

"Indeed it is time to choose."

And the choice is? Islamic terrorism as alternative of democracy? Your whole hit piece is an apologetics of Islamic terrorism. Just because Indian society have skeletons you do not approve, it does not deserve government, democracy or voting rights, you insist.

"It is to develop the moral courage to assert that political principles are not open to a vote, to assert that the right is a matter of fact and not of consensus"

Sorry to puncture your utopia. But we prefer not to succumb to dictatorship - be it moral, political or otherwise - be it of political principles, of moral principles, of rights, of duties, of consensus or of personal whims. We reject their absolutism. You like to place principles and rights that you value the most to be above and unreachable to vote, consensus, democracy and make them infallible and non-negotiable - who gave you and our principles such divine mandate and rights? We have whole slew of people who seek and claim their version of principles and rights to be divine, infallible and beyond the reach to mortals. That what terrorism has been all about. People want a way out, not one terrorism replaced by another.

Ledzius,
I am not suggesting any quick fix solutions to terrorism. What I am saying is that reacting to threats like this requires moral courage - a certainty that one is right, that one's life is valuable and can be defended at any cost - which a democracy sorely lacks. The people who participate in a democracy - who are willing to compromise on anything and everything - can never have that courage. Politically, I am suggesting a republic with a limited government that protects the rights of its people and does that well - a government similar to the one established by the founders of America. That however can only happen if the people stand up for their rights - not as something granted by the state - but as something the state cannot take away. Until we develop such a respect for our own lives, we cannot hope to tackle something as vicious as terrorism.

kerty,
"Your whole hit piece is an apologetics of Islamic terrorism."
You need to read my post again. You don't seem to have understood it.

"We reject their absolutism."
There is one absolutism that you cannot reject - the absolutism of reality. If you lack the moral courage to hold the right to life as absolute and to accept the necessary political principles to achieve it, you cannot complain when your government fails to respect the life of its citizens.

"who gave you and our principles such divine mandate and rights?"
I need no mandate, divine or otherwise, to assert that I have an absolute right to life.

KM

I read your piece and my comments were spot on. People are raising their moral voice against terrorism and asserting their right to life but you seem to deny them and claim they are not entitled to them unless they uphold your political principles - you want to hold their right to life at ransom unless they meet your political litmus tests - That is terrorism pure and simple, far worse than apologetics of terrorism.


"There is one absolutism that you cannot reject - the absolutism of reality"

Only fanatics would claim that reality is absolute. Reality can be shaped any number of ways - to deny that or to impose absolutism of any 'chosen' reality is no less terrorist. To reject absolutism of reality in itself is an act of moral courage.

In democracy, people complain - that is how democracy functions and that is how people get what they want from their government.

Kerty:"who gave you and your principles such divine mandate and rights?"
KM: "I need no mandate, divine or otherwise, to assert that I have an absolute right to life."

Than keep them to ourself, unless you relish them being trampled on. None of your principles are divine and none of your mandates/rights are absolute, not even your right to life. Period. If you take mine away, I take yours away. Plain and simple.

"I am suggesting a republic with a limited government that protects the rights of its people and does that well "

What would have happened in Mumbai if we had a limited government? Would it have protected rights of people, their right to life? It took massive doze of government to put away those terrorists. Limited government can not protect anything when surrounded by terrorists, fanatics, fundamentalists, dictators, absolutists. I do not know what kind of fool's world you live in.

"Only fanatics would claim that reality is absolute. Reality can be shaped any number of ways -"


sach ghate yah badhe toh sach na rahe,
jhooth ki koi inteha hi nahin

Kerty - Going through KM's previous posts, it appears that he is a Randhead, and in his silly worldview everything boils down to "contracts between men".

Perhaps according to him, there is a contract between the terrorist and his victims, and the government should butt out.

kerty,
If you enjoy concocting strawmen from thin air that are easy to refute instead of responding to anything I have actually written, go ahead and waste your time. I do not care to respond.

A limited government is a government that spends its entire resources on defence and the judiciary. Its military power is not limited. For a detailed post on what this means, take a look at this post by Ramesh Srivats

Ledzius,
Where did you see any mention of any contract? I am not suggesting that government butt out of defense. I am saying that government should butt out out of other things so that it can do its primary job (defense and maintaining law and order) well. Moreover, dealing with Islamic terrorism will need an open war with the countries that sponsor it. That sort of action needs moral courage and certainty, something that a democratic government in India does not have and will not have for a long time. I mentioned this in the original post itself. I wonder why it is so difficult for you and kerty to understand my post.

KM


"If you enjoy concocting strawmen from thin air that are easy to refute instead of responding to anything I have actually written, go ahead and waste your time."

Mine are point-by-point, to-the-point rebuttals. On the other hand, your whole piece can be construed as an exercise in strawmen arguments that are not relevant to the issue of terrorism at hand. In stead of practical solutions to tackle terrorism that India faces, you provide impractical Randian prescriptions that need to reprogram the nation to a Randian nation-state that has not existed any time in history, does not exist anywhere at present, can not exist in real world, and will never exist in anybody's lifetime - so, why would you expect anybody to wait for your Allah?

"Moreover, dealing with Islamic terrorism will need an open war with the countries that sponsor it. That sort of action needs moral courage and certainty, something that a democratic government in India does not have and will not have for a long time."

Democracies do take their time to arrive at moral courage and moral certainties. That is what makes them deliberative and wiser and separates them from impulsive, reckless and fanatic regimes that operate on moral certitudes where everything is black and white, where moral certitudes are on auto-pilot and not deliberative. War is not something nations should engage solely on self-serving moral certitudes - that is what produces war-mongers and terrorists. Why limited government should not be programmed with one-point mandate even if it is that of wars/defense - because state, by its very nature, will keep inventing and expanding whatever mandate is assigned to it, just like a welfare state would keep expanding its mandate for welfare dependency. Nations need to keep its fanatic moral certitudes in checks. It is democracy that creates checks and balances and keeps the government dynamic and responsive to needs of the times.

KM #10,

This comment doesn't logically follow from your article. Your article was more of a rant against democracy, but in your comments you propose some form of a limited govt role.

You say- "Moreover, dealing with Islamic terrorism will need an open war with the countries that sponsor it. That sort of action needs moral courage and certainty, something that a democratic government in India does not have and will not have for a long time."

Now, who is to decide whether we go to war? Some army general or a politician? In case it is the latter, is he supposed to get elected? If so, we are again back to the same old democracy. If it is the former, then we have a military dictatorship just like Pakistan has had all along.

You leave too many questions unanswered and raise new ones. The devil is in the details. This is one problem I have with Randian philosophy. Any practical form of it would not be a whole lot different from what major democracies are anyway. You add layer after layer to the basic idea, and you would end up having to deal with a lot of baggage along the road. That's reality. We don't live in a fictitious world like that portrayed in Atlas Shrugged.

K.M.

Are you assuming that this small government of yours will be populated by Randroids, excuse me, Randians who have the stamp of approval from the "world's foremost authority on Objectivism," and all of them will act in a single, focused manner when making a decision which stems from moral courage, and all of them will arrive at the exact same conclusion, with no disagreements at all? If not, then we're back to square one with no solution.

How will this small government be elected, if not through a democratic process? Isn't it democracy - however imperfect - that ensures all those rights you talk about? Would you be able to exercise more of your rights in a dictatorship?

I'd suggest a partnership with madrassas where youg minds can read 'Atlas Shrugged' and 'The Fountainhead' along with Quran. That way, in a few generations, your dream may come true as an army of Randians emerges.

As an aside, 'Atlas Shrugged' and 'The Fountainhead' are categorized as fiction - and for a very good reason. Your failure to acknowledge this simple fact makes me doubt your "rational" arguments.

It's also OK to enjoy Mozart. ;)

Ledzius,
It is not democracy (per se) that I am arguing against, but a democracy without any limits or principles. (I know we have a constitution, but it is so self contradictory and inconsistent as to be useless)
Yes, the devil is in the details, but a limited government did exist for more than a 100 years in America, fought a war against Britain in 1812, fought a civil war in the 1860's that established the freedom of slaves, and governed over one of the largest peaceful territorial expansions in recent history and created a nation unmatched in its prosperity. Enough details or do you need more?

kaffir,
Disagreements never pose a problem as long as men are free to debate, persuade, argue or go their own ways. Disagreements and debate over matters of detail serve to strengthen the underlying principles. As long as men agree on the principle that no man may coerce another, disagreements can be worked out. As I pointed out in my previous comment, America had a limited government for a 100 years, long before Ayn Rand developed her philosophy.

About your unsubstantiated insinuation that I do not have a mind of my own and for your information,
I do not understand Western music and only listen to old Bollywood songs.

And also for your information, Ayn Rand wrote several non-fiction collections of essays and speeches including "Introduction to Objectivist epistemology" in epistemology, "The Virtue of Selfishness" in ethics, "Capitalism - The Unknown Ideal" in politics, "The Romantic Manifesto" in art, etc. Several of these essays are available on the Ayn Rand Center's website if you care to read them.

kaffir,
Regarding your comment about madrassas,

Do you believe that certainty is the same as dogma?

If so, are you certain?

KM

"As I pointed out in my previous comment, America had a limited government for a 100 years,"

Why did that limited government not survive? Did somebody invade America to remove it?

You are making a case for limited government when that government is seeking unprecedented deficit/government spending to rescue that doomed capitalism. Perhaps you do not see the irony in it.

BTW, prior to limited government, America had no government for many hundred years - and it did not die on its own, it was dismantled by violent invasions by champions of limited government.

kerty,
A political system doesn't shape its citizens. The citizens shape a political system. No political system can survive without a social and moral base. Locke's political theories could not have lasted on a base of altruism which is fundamentally incompatible with capitalism and limited government. Altruism requires interventionist welfare policies.

What we have in America today is not a limited government but a mixed economy. Do I really need to belabour this point? Tens of thousands of pages of regulations, a tax code so complex that parts of it actually grant subsidies to single companies, interest rates artificially adjusted to encourage consumption and debt - is this capitalism? You might credibly argue that laissez-faire capitalism is impractical but blaming the failures of a thoroughly mixed economy on capitalism is dishonest to say the least.

"BTW, prior to limited government, America had no government for many hundred years - and it did not die on its own, it was dismantled by violent invasions by champions of limited government.
You mean the monarchs of Europe who established colonies in America? monarchs are champions of limited government?
Or do you mean the native cultures in America before they were conquered? Did they even have a concept of limited government?

I am not making a case for limited government tomorrow. I am not saying that all government machinery should be immediately discarded. I am making a case that that should be the long term goal. I thought that went without saying.

Do you believe that certainty is the same as dogma?

All that certainty is of no use if I am the only one certain and people around me, people whose decisions influence me, people who are needed to accomplish a task do not see things my way, or moreover disagree with it. Keep waving that self-righteous and condescending jhanda of certainty of yours.

You can keep swimming in that theoretical word soup of yours till your last breath and it's not likely to change how the government works, or its size.

Kaffir:

""As an aside, 'Atlas Shrugged' and 'The Fountainhead' are categorized as fiction - and for a very good reason. Your failure to acknowledge this simple fact makes me doubt your "rational" arguments."'

An aside it may be, but an important point! There is a reason why drivel such as "Atlas Shrugged" (or is it "Shagged"?) and _The Fountainhead_ (or is it "uprintable word that cannot be used on DC") is categorized as fiction. To elevate this to the so-called philosoph of "objectivism" is the height of sophomoric naughtiness.

Although, KM does not explicity deploy Ann Randy, so I am not commenting on his article, but on the commentators....

Or do you mean the native cultures in America before they were conquered? Did they even have a concept of limited government?

Based on what I've read, the answer is yes. Though their concept of government was somewhat different than the European concept, because their societies were not the same as European societies which were more class based. Look up Gayanashagowa.

K.M.
Also look up Concurrent Resolution 331 passed by the US Congress in 1988. You might learn a thing or two about the native Americans, whom you seem to hold a low opinion of.

i really do not see (am i going blind due to too much self-service?) km mention ayn rand explicitly. did he do so in other posts? he seems to be deploying randian ideas, but does he mention her?

Disagreements never pose a problem as long as men are free to debate, persuade, argue or go their own ways.

Yes, but we're talking about the functioning of the government and discussions among those who are elected and hold cabinet positions. My comment was not about a discussion among friends or members of a meetup group at the local coffee shop where if we disagree, we can go our own ways without it having any serious consequences for the citizens.

At some point, you'll have to handle the 'proselytism of Objectivist philosophy' question - which I'd raised way back in one of your earlier posts, because without it, you can wax eloquent as much as you want, and you can be 100% right, and all it's gonna achieve is you pissing in the wind. Which is fine if you're happy with that. I could be wrong, but I've a feeling you want others to share your view and make decisions based on that.

kaffir,
When you find that I write a post without any arguments of my own, merely quoting Ayn Rand as if her saying it made it true, I will thank you for commenting about her. Until then, assigning labels to viewpoints you don't agree with and dismissing them does not help the discussion. I don't find many comments in this thread that address my central point.
So long as we do not value our own lives and allow our freedom to be chipped away in small pieces - by laws that ban smoking and make helmets mandatory - and large ones - by laws that enforce reservations, ban the setting up of educational institutes for profit, ban people from selling their property on their own terms - we have no cause to be outraged that the government does not value our lives either.

Regarding the uselessness of certainty and theory,
Culture is shaped by those who hold uncompromising ideas and are willing to spread them.

About disagreements and democracy,
You have not replied to the non - initiation of force principle which is at the foundation of civilized interactions between men. We can disagree without anyone being at a loss as long as both of us reject force as a substitute for agreement. Once one of us initiates force, the other has no option but to retalliate. Institutionalize the initiation of force - whether by a democracy, monarchy or dictatorship, and you destroy the fabric of civilization. Institutionalize the opposite by the rule of law - property rights, freedom of speech etc. - and you get prosperity and peace.
Democracy is about "Who makes laws?", not about "What laws are proper?" and its winners are the men who are the most unscrupulous and the most ruthless. Let me ask you a simple question? Why do we have so much "corruption" in our government? Is it because most men are corrupt or is it because unlimited democracy encourages corruption? If you believe in the former, good luck achieving anything by a collective vote by corrupt people - democracy cannot magically turn vice into virtue.

kaffir,
Regarding native American culture and Gayanashagowa,
Good for them and an addition in my knowledge. But what is the connection between that and whether limited government is good or bad?

But what is the connection between that and whether limited government is good or bad?

K.M.
The above question is different from your earlier question. Google is your friend - feel free to do research on Native Americans and their form of limited government, and its pros and cons.