So Many Questions
Here is a collection of three articles, that have no connection with each other other than having been written on the same day.
Gold
Till the early 1970's, the US Dollar was backed by Gold. That is, the Government guaranteed that they would give you a certain amount of Gold in exchange for your dollar bill any time you asked for it. If the Government wanted to print money, they had to buy and store more gold. An echo of this much loved system survives in the use of the phrase "Gold Standard", for that was exactly what it was called. Nixon broke the US dollar from the Gold Standard, in order to be able to print more money more quickly to finance an expanding war and shrinking economy. Printing more money neither won the war, nor did it fix the economy. However, it did lay down the template for future abuse of governmental power.
Harry D. Schultz, a popular investment consultant has this to say about Gold.
I believe that the value of gold runs deeper than that. The world has seen the devastation caused by wars of adventure started by Governments. The World War started by the Germans, the Afghan war started by the Soviets and the Iraq war started by the Americans all have one thing not in common - ideology, and one thing in common - they were not waged in self-defense. It is hard to imagine an average Soviet citizen in a suburb outside Moscow getting worked up about Afghanistan. Given this, how does it become possible for such governments to wage these wars?
I believe that there are two fundamental enablers for bad governmental behavior. The first is Taxes. Voters care most about local issues, while most taxes are charged by the Federal government. The priorities of the national government, which are by quite literally farther removed from the priorities of the people, are hence better funded. All that money has to be put to some use! Adventures based on flimsy premises suddenly become possible.
The second enabler is debt. A deviation from the Gold Standard has given governments a virtual blank check to print as much money as they want. No war or confrontation, no matter how unimportant for the defense of the realm, needs to go underfunded anymore.
A return to prudent financial practices will force the Government to live within its means. However, that also means that the Government will have less money to help people during hard times. But wars are much nastier a business than emaciation of social services. Its easier to tackle one problem at a time, so the bigger one first. Besides, there seems to be something wrong in the picture where the Government is helping people using money it does not have...
What are we doing here?
John Stuart Mills was an eloquent advocate of a philosophy called Utilitarianism. He contended that the primary purpose of a being was to maximize pleasure and minimize pain. For obvious reasons, this came as a rude shock to many, since it did not even consider any form of "higher purpose" as relevant. Objections raised to the theory included one that gave an example of a pig. A swine is happy and contented as long as it can fuck and feed when it wants. Does that mean that it is having a better life than humans?
Mills rounded up the Utilitarian argument brilliantly in his classic article on Utilitarianism by pointing out that the argument about the swine degrades humans by presupposing that they are capable of no greater pleasures than those enjoyed by the swine. Things like intellectual pursuit, fashions, music and appreciation for the arts and letters may be irrelevant to a pig, but a human would be loath to give these up in exchange for limiting him/herself to the pleasures of a pig.
So now that we have different "levels" of pleasures, how can we tell which one is higher than the other? Mills gives a simple test:
One fascinating fall out of this line of argument is that not all people would enjoy the same pleasures. A fool may not be able to enjoy the pleasures of intellectual pursuit, but the smart person can still enjoy the pleasures of carousing. In Mills' own words:
Another fall out is the conclusion that a being capable of experiencing higher pleasures will necessarily have the the capacity to feel more acute pains as well. The sensitive may yet inherit the world, what with their higher pleasures. And pains...
Enlightenment
Over the last month, three quite independent streams on investigations converged into one perfect storm.
It all started out while reading reviews of Richard Dawkins' new book "God Delusion", in which Dawkins marshals argument to the effect that religion is one of the biggest man made sources of suffering in the world. He advocates not just personal renunciation of religion but active confrontation of the religious beliefs of others as well. Although I have no great love for organized religion or its advocates, from a cross section of reviews I concluded that this book was probably a bit too extremist for my taste.
I then came across naturalist David Attenborough's brilliant series "Life of Mammals", whose last episode explores the monkeys of Sri Lanka. I dare any Indian to watch this episode, compare the monkey's behavior to Hindu caste system and tell me from the bottom of their heart that we are not descended from monkeys! The Sri Lankan monkeys divide themselves into strict hereditary caste lines. Higher caste females are forbidden to mate with lower castes (although they make every effort to surreptitiously do so). The warrior caste even has a "king" who enforces control over his harem by having his "warriors" beat up any male from "lower caste" who "looks funnily" at the ladies. In a later program I also learned that Monkeys have many of the basic cognitive abilities that we ourselves use as the basis of our intelligence. Monkeys don't use these abilities to their full potential because they do not need to. We are all children of Monkeys and the apologists for caste system in India don't seem to have out evolved their origins.
Finally, I heard a podcast that read out Immanuel Kant's essay on Enlightenment.
Although Kant is very careful when talking about what Enlightenment means for Religion, it is very clear that it will act as a powerful force against misuse of religion. Organized religion galvanizes a lot of people behind it and there is always the danger that their efforts shall be channeled towards unworthy causes by the shepherds. If the sheep dare to question, then the shepherd cannot run away with too much power.
Kant is very positive about the prospects for Enlightenment to spread, but he warns that it can be brought to live only slowly, after a long period of freedom.
Hurrying Enlightenment may, however, end up in a disaster.
I thought about all of these ideas in the context of contemporary India. It effectively put a pause on my intense desire to see radical advancement of liberal free markets and Enlightenment in India. Gandhi's words about "preparing ourselves" acquires new meaning in this light. It is going to take a very long time for Enlightenment to fully flower in India. However, as long as freedom continues to reign supreme, India will be able to find its way. Trying to short circuit the process by casting aspersions on democracy and public power of litigation will only lead to some as yet unfathomable monstrosities getting its grip on the nation's reigns. As with the Monkey's cognitive abilities, we have it in us to believe in our own reason, and to stop being guided through life by gurus, superstitions, passions and prejudices. It will simply take a very long period of freedom for the spark to go off and light up these abilities.
For the first time, I feel I will not see a Great India in my lifetime. An India where religion is private as well as practical, caste is destroyed, and freedom is infinite. For if we allow each other to do anything we want, then it means we trust each other to exercise that freedom responsibly. That will be the day when we finally become one people. As goes India, so goes the world. It is going to take a very long time, but so be it. It is better that way.
Gold
Till the early 1970's, the US Dollar was backed by Gold. That is, the Government guaranteed that they would give you a certain amount of Gold in exchange for your dollar bill any time you asked for it. If the Government wanted to print money, they had to buy and store more gold. An echo of this much loved system survives in the use of the phrase "Gold Standard", for that was exactly what it was called. Nixon broke the US dollar from the Gold Standard, in order to be able to print more money more quickly to finance an expanding war and shrinking economy. Printing more money neither won the war, nor did it fix the economy. However, it did lay down the template for future abuse of governmental power.
Harry D. Schultz, a popular investment consultant has this to say about Gold.
...but in my view we should fight for a pure gold standard, the old-fashioned form, because it worked! And not just for fiscal reasons! It forced nations to limit their debt, spending and socialist schemes, which meant sound behavioural habits were formed around those limitations, and those habits rubbed off on everyone. People were more honest, moral, decent, kind, because the system was honest and moral. Cause and effect. Today we have cause and effect of the opposite standard: no limits on what governments can do, control, dictate; no limit on government debt, welfare or socialist schemes. There is no governor on the government.
I believe that the value of gold runs deeper than that. The world has seen the devastation caused by wars of adventure started by Governments. The World War started by the Germans, the Afghan war started by the Soviets and the Iraq war started by the Americans all have one thing not in common - ideology, and one thing in common - they were not waged in self-defense. It is hard to imagine an average Soviet citizen in a suburb outside Moscow getting worked up about Afghanistan. Given this, how does it become possible for such governments to wage these wars?
I believe that there are two fundamental enablers for bad governmental behavior. The first is Taxes. Voters care most about local issues, while most taxes are charged by the Federal government. The priorities of the national government, which are by quite literally farther removed from the priorities of the people, are hence better funded. All that money has to be put to some use! Adventures based on flimsy premises suddenly become possible.
The second enabler is debt. A deviation from the Gold Standard has given governments a virtual blank check to print as much money as they want. No war or confrontation, no matter how unimportant for the defense of the realm, needs to go underfunded anymore.
A return to prudent financial practices will force the Government to live within its means. However, that also means that the Government will have less money to help people during hard times. But wars are much nastier a business than emaciation of social services. Its easier to tackle one problem at a time, so the bigger one first. Besides, there seems to be something wrong in the picture where the Government is helping people using money it does not have...
What are we doing here?
John Stuart Mills was an eloquent advocate of a philosophy called Utilitarianism. He contended that the primary purpose of a being was to maximize pleasure and minimize pain. For obvious reasons, this came as a rude shock to many, since it did not even consider any form of "higher purpose" as relevant. Objections raised to the theory included one that gave an example of a pig. A swine is happy and contented as long as it can fuck and feed when it wants. Does that mean that it is having a better life than humans?
Mills rounded up the Utilitarian argument brilliantly in his classic article on Utilitarianism by pointing out that the argument about the swine degrades humans by presupposing that they are capable of no greater pleasures than those enjoyed by the swine. Things like intellectual pursuit, fashions, music and appreciation for the arts and letters may be irrelevant to a pig, but a human would be loath to give these up in exchange for limiting him/herself to the pleasures of a pig.
Few human creatures would consent to be changed into any of the lower animals, for a promise of the fullest allowance of a beast's pleasures; no intelligent human being would consent to be a fool, no instructed person would be an ignoramus, no person of feeling and conscience would be selfish and base, even though they should be persuaded that the fool, the dunce, or the rascal is better satisfied with his lot than they are with theirs.
So now that we have different "levels" of pleasures, how can we tell which one is higher than the other? Mills gives a simple test:
Of two pleasures, if there be one to which all or almost all who have experience of both give a decided preference, irrespective of any feeling of moral obligation to prefer it, that is the more desirable pleasure.
One fascinating fall out of this line of argument is that not all people would enjoy the same pleasures. A fool may not be able to enjoy the pleasures of intellectual pursuit, but the smart person can still enjoy the pleasures of carousing. In Mills' own words:
It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig, are of a different opinion, it is because they only know their own side of the question. The other party to the comparison knows both sides.
Another fall out is the conclusion that a being capable of experiencing higher pleasures will necessarily have the the capacity to feel more acute pains as well. The sensitive may yet inherit the world, what with their higher pleasures. And pains...
Enlightenment
Over the last month, three quite independent streams on investigations converged into one perfect storm.
It all started out while reading reviews of Richard Dawkins' new book "God Delusion", in which Dawkins marshals argument to the effect that religion is one of the biggest man made sources of suffering in the world. He advocates not just personal renunciation of religion but active confrontation of the religious beliefs of others as well. Although I have no great love for organized religion or its advocates, from a cross section of reviews I concluded that this book was probably a bit too extremist for my taste.
I then came across naturalist David Attenborough's brilliant series "Life of Mammals", whose last episode explores the monkeys of Sri Lanka. I dare any Indian to watch this episode, compare the monkey's behavior to Hindu caste system and tell me from the bottom of their heart that we are not descended from monkeys! The Sri Lankan monkeys divide themselves into strict hereditary caste lines. Higher caste females are forbidden to mate with lower castes (although they make every effort to surreptitiously do so). The warrior caste even has a "king" who enforces control over his harem by having his "warriors" beat up any male from "lower caste" who "looks funnily" at the ladies. In a later program I also learned that Monkeys have many of the basic cognitive abilities that we ourselves use as the basis of our intelligence. Monkeys don't use these abilities to their full potential because they do not need to. We are all children of Monkeys and the apologists for caste system in India don't seem to have out evolved their origins.
Finally, I heard a podcast that read out Immanuel Kant's essay on Enlightenment.
Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-imposed immaturity. Immaturity is the inability to use one's understanding without guidance from another. This immaturity is self-imposed when its cause lies not in lack of understanding, but in lack of resolve and courage to use it without guidance from another. Sapere Aude! [dare to know] "Have courage to use your own understanding!"--that is the motto of enlightenment.
Although Kant is very careful when talking about what Enlightenment means for Religion, it is very clear that it will act as a powerful force against misuse of religion. Organized religion galvanizes a lot of people behind it and there is always the danger that their efforts shall be channeled towards unworthy causes by the shepherds. If the sheep dare to question, then the shepherd cannot run away with too much power.
Kant is very positive about the prospects for Enlightenment to spread, but he warns that it can be brought to live only slowly, after a long period of freedom.
But that the public should enlighten itself is more likely; indeed, if it is only allowed freedom, enlightenment is almost inevitable. For even among the entrenched guardians of the great masses a few will always think for themselves, a few who, after having themselves thrown off the yoke of immaturity, will spread the spirit of a rational appreciation...
Hurrying Enlightenment may, however, end up in a disaster.
a public can only attain enlightenment slowly. Perhaps a revolution can overthrow autocratic despotism and profiteering or power-grabbing oppression, but it can never truly reform a manner of thinking; instead, new prejudices, just like the old ones they replace, will serve as a leash for the great unthinking mass.
I thought about all of these ideas in the context of contemporary India. It effectively put a pause on my intense desire to see radical advancement of liberal free markets and Enlightenment in India. Gandhi's words about "preparing ourselves" acquires new meaning in this light. It is going to take a very long time for Enlightenment to fully flower in India. However, as long as freedom continues to reign supreme, India will be able to find its way. Trying to short circuit the process by casting aspersions on democracy and public power of litigation will only lead to some as yet unfathomable monstrosities getting its grip on the nation's reigns. As with the Monkey's cognitive abilities, we have it in us to believe in our own reason, and to stop being guided through life by gurus, superstitions, passions and prejudices. It will simply take a very long period of freedom for the spark to go off and light up these abilities.
For the first time, I feel I will not see a Great India in my lifetime. An India where religion is private as well as practical, caste is destroyed, and freedom is infinite. For if we allow each other to do anything we want, then it means we trust each other to exercise that freedom responsibly. That will be the day when we finally become one people. As goes India, so goes the world. It is going to take a very long time, but so be it. It is better that way.
Comments