Pages
Stay In Touch
More
© 2012 Sanjeev Sabhlok's revolutionary blog
I've prepared a simple diagram to illustrate how one's views about the state affects the kind of government we want, as well as the electoral system (in case we prefer democracy to monarchy).
[Click for larger image. The associated PPT)
You might be surprised to note that I have put Gandhi along with Hobbes and Chanakya, on the right extreme.
That is because he wanted self-governing villages. Hobbes's strong state defends us from each other (and invaders), but otherwise leaves us alone.
So also Gandhi's Ram Rajya needs a a strong king to defend borders, leaving the villages alone. A Ram is needed, a king who understands the Mahabharata's message. In Ramayana Ram is not a socialist maniac, and does not intervene unnecessarily; just assures justice.
Ram ran a tight ship; a minimalist state. He fought evil and was known as a man of great integrity. That is ALL that a king must do.
Democracy was NEVER Gandhi's ideal, Ram Rajya was.
Democracy was, instead, Nehru's ideal. Nehru came to it from well to the left of John Stuart Mill – through a Fabian socialist model. To him democracy was a tool for legitimising all-encompassing, maximalist state. The state would achieve commanding heights. In his democratic society, liberty would be lost entirely. We would become minions of the state.
Gandhi and Nehru were poles apart!
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:
- A simple test of your God’s strength
- Deendayal Upadhyaya’s integral humanism #3 Western vs. Bharatiya view
- Hindu Dharma and capitalist institutions #3: Freedom and the role of the state in Mahabharata
- So what should be the position of the state re: fast unto death?
- Why so many religions? – a Christian view
- Stand by the truth – others will come around to your view
- Brainstorm: A compilation of electoral reforms proposals for India
- Some innovations in buses and bus systems
- Can I see Arvind Kejriwal’s theory of state (or of Anna Hazare), please?
- My initial views on Baba Ramdev's movement
To spread the message of liberty and critical thinking, please share this post
A simple diagram: How one’s view about the state affects views about electoral systems http://t.co/KmQnDP0I
A simple diagram: How one’s view about the state affects views about electoral systems http://t.co/kCVsufcK
Could you briefly outline (or link to a previous post of) your objections to proportional representation? How is proportional representation in principle at odds with either effective preference-aggregation or citizens’ liberty?
Nice compilation. I have myself gone through these stages. Before I started looking into the role of the government (about an year ago), I held that democracy was the ideal that a society should pursue but I now understand that it is liberty that should be pursued and democracy is only one of the means by which it can be pursued.
Arvind, I am merely building the case against PR which I find most people don’t analyse from first principles.
Even you: You suggest “effective preference-aggregation” is an objective. I don’t see how that can possibly be done. A cursory knowledge of Arrow’s impossibility theorem will show you why.
And liberty – yes, it has a strong tendency to give voice to extremists of all sorts, and thereby allow anti-liberty forces to prosper. FPTP can also do that if it is not checked through good electoral design.
But I will not engage in debate on this issue till I’ve finished showing this issue from all angles. Then I’ll summarise. Finally I’ll debate. So pl. have some patience! Thanks!
s