Pages
Stay In Touch
More
© 2012 Sanjeev Sabhlok's revolutionary blog
Socialists masquerade as the "saviours of the poor". They apparently have a "human face".
This is falsehood and sheer hypocrisy. For well over 60 years we have seen how pathetic the socialists are – unable even to remove poverty, leave alone educating our children and looking after the health of the people.
And yet, for some reason classical liberals (the votaries of capitalism) are supposed to "sugar-coat" their message.
The truth is that classical liberalism already has plenty of "sugar coating".
In BFN I've GUARANTEED the ELIMINATION (not just alleviation) of poverty within three years of the reforms taking effect (through a negative income tax model).
I've also guaranteed HIGH QUALITY school education for everyone, and appropriate social insurance premiums for the poor for them to be able to access high quality health care.
In addition, corruption will be brought down virtually to zero (that will be the hardest to remove, but when the government steps out of many of its current activities and pays the few remaining people who are left, very well, then the incentives will significantly shift against corruption).
It is important that India begins to understand this: that socialism is ALL TALK NO RESULTS (- except corruption and poverty).
Socialism SIMPLY CAN'T remove poverty, it can't educate our children, it can't ensure the health of the people.
It failed to do so in N.Korea, in China, in USSR. AND INDIA FOR 64 YEARS. It simply can't.
On the other hand, classical liberalism (capitalism) is based on the theory (and practice) of INCENTIVES. It works because it is SCIENTIFIC.
India can't get to where it wants to get, without changing its mindset. A mindset that PRAISES socialism despite its REPEATED AND ENDLESS FAILURE is surely worth changing! How long can you keep doing the same stupid thing and expect better results?
It is time that those who praise socialism to the sky start reading BASIC economics. They can begin by reading BFN.
If you found this post useful, then consider subscribing to my blog by email:
Join the Freedom Team of India or become a Freedom Partner.
Related posts:
- Classical vs. other forms of ‘liberalism’
- Rajaji’s interpretation of classical liberalism
- Peter J. Boettke’s crisp summary of classical liberalism
- The biological basis of classical liberalism
- Videos on the history of liberty (the story of classical liberalism)
- A super-confused Hindu swami’s view on “Vedantic socialism”
- Socialism destroys, capitalism creates
- Inoculating India against the mental disease of socialism
- Poverty – the natural consequence of socialism
- Is capitalism and socialism the same thing?
To spread the message of liberty and critical thinking, please share this post
Classical liberalism is FAR MORE humane than socialism: Socialists masquerade as the… http://t.co/A3oEAOPo
Classical liberalism is FAR MORE humane than socialism http://t.co/j4j5SbLz
Classical liberalism is FAR MORE humane than socialism: Socialists masquerade as the… http://t.co/A3oEAOPo
Maybe you dont realize that GUARANTEEING is not the same thing as empty BOASTING and making of fanciful wish-lists in BFN.
Before you can ELIMINATE and GUARANTEE your way to glory, you need to be within striking distance atleast some of your goals.
Campaigning in exile is fine, but if I understand the sociology of India reasonably all I can do sympathize with your wishes and aspirations. Your neo-classical liberal panacea is unlikely to sell for a long time to come
Fair enough, Ranganth. Should India want to revel in poverty, corruption, filth, and disease, it is most welcome to. I will have nothing of it.
Sanjeev,
The point that you missed about my response is that your proclamations and rants seem to be nothing more than building 'castles in the air'.
Other than cyber space, very little of the political space in India is occupied by your FTI movement. IAC movement perhaps provided FTI a crack in the door, but it does not seem like you used it very well.
If the goal of FTI is break out into the Indian political and social firmament in 20/30 years from now, all this flippancy is fine and the prescription of classical-liberal medicine may work its way glacially into the Indian social blood stream. Even of such a far-out prognosis I am not very sanguine about. But who knows.
The problem with your salesmanship of the typical classical liberal paradigm is that there is no successful working national role-model in the Anglo-Saxon world and even in most of Europe (Most of it with the probable exception of Canada and Australia are heading towards a serious economic break-down/collapse). Canada is a part welfare economy which theoriticians like you detest. Australia may escape the harsh fate due its low population and resource abundance. The successful and resilient economies of the world are mostly in the Nordic world (Norway, Sweden, Swiss) and they dont follow the pure liberal model of Smith or Hayek and are more of social democracies following a mixed form of market capitalism.
It is no use blaming the woes of USA, UK and North Europe on Keyenesian ideas and policies. That will only serve to set up an argument for the practical impossibility of implementing the economic and social frameworks based on Smith and Hayek's theories.
When US and UK could not follow their own celebrated economists in letter and spirit, how do you expect poor India to give a patient ear to your economic pleas.
And your statements like these
"Socialism SIMPLY CAN'T remove poverty, it can't educate our children, it can't ensure the health of the people."
"On the other hand, classical liberalism (capitalism) is based on the theory (and practice) of INCENTIVES. It works because it is SCIENTIFIC."
expose your poor understanding of economics, science and sociology. Economic systems cannot be called scientific, because they are human and social. One system may work better than another at varying points of time.
If Socialism cannot remove poverty, capitalism has created poverty out of the blue as it did during the 1930's and in previous centuries. Socialism has worked with better success in European cultures as compared to Asian cultures.
You get to provide your arguments on this blog, Ranganath. No problem.
However, I don’t have time to engage with you. Let me focus on my message. You are welcome to interpret it whichever way you wish. One to one debate with people who simply won’t care to read what I write is not very useful.
Had you shown ANY understanding of what I have written (or challenged specific comments) I might have engaged in a conversation. But you are putting words in my mouth (imagining what I say!) and then debating with those fictitious interpretations.
S
I think, Sanjeev, pointing to the average per capita incomes and the average infant mortality rates across countries should be sufficient data to make the case.
After that, if people still want to sit in their theoretical castles, you should let them.
After all, the US, UK, Germany and the Nordic countries are so much better off than India, China, Russia, North Korea or Egypt – and, this while using diluted models of the Austrian School, instead of the completely defunct Keynesian or Marxist models (even the Nordic countries are not Keynesian or Marxist, they are liberal). So, what do the socialists have on their side to show? Only the failures.
Leave it at that – hopefully, intelligent people will get the drift.
cheers
supratim