That I don't agree with at all The point is this: even if a parent were ruining the future of the child (in this way), that isn't cause enough for the state to step in. But let's elaborate a bit. My response to Bhagwad was this:

re: “how you can give parents the freedom to ruin the lives of their children by not giving them basic education”, I’m afraid despite my repeated requests, you’ve not read BFN. Now you are alleging that I’m advocating freedom to RUIN childrens’ lives. Of course not. That’s a total distortion of what I’m saying.

What you are unable to fathom (CLEARLY you are not a parent, yet) is that THERE IS NO ONE IN THE WORLD WITH GREATER CONCERN FOR A CHILD THAN THE PARENT. Extremely exceptional cases notwithstanding, I’ve not yet come across A SINGLE (normal) CASE where parents aren’t determined to get the best possible future for their children.

The fact that in some cases they choose NOT to send their children to [often non-existent] school ["run" by the government] is the BEST outcome for their child under those circumstances.

For you, who have no child (I’m unlikely to be wrong on this deduction, but if I’m wrong, my apologies), to SECOND GUESS the decisions of parents is the most absurd extremist form of paternalism one can imagine. A paternal parent who has no child!

And now for the extracts from BFN that clarify the situation:

[Re: School vouchers] This method will also ensure that the choices made by parents are honoured. Honouring parents’ choices can only be a good thing. No one could be a greater well-wisher of a child than his or her own parents. A government should never interfere with a parent’s choices without very good reason – only if both parents have a conclusive record of neglecting their children can a government make better decisions on behalf of the child. 

[In relation to a diagram]  The diagram below summarizes the reasons and shows how freedom keeps the population size low and motivates parents to send their children to school.

And finally, the full argument, from the Online Notes to BFN:

We cannot expect a child to grow up into an adult capable of making informed choices without having acquired at least a decent education. Capitalism requires the society to develop the knowledge and skills of its children. Semi-capitalist societies like USA, Japan, Sweden, Finland, France, Germany, Netherlands and UK had all achieved very high literacy rates by the end of the nineteenth century; some of them had achieved similar high rates of literacy even earlier  prior to the ideas of freedom becoming more widely understood. Initial growth in literacy was grounded in compulsion.

But is compulsion really necessary? As the father of my children I am responsible for them; so I must have the freedom to educate them, or to not educate them. My having such discretion really doesn’t bother anyone, because you are certain that I will to educate my children. Indeed, we clamour for good schools for our children, and spend hours with them at home on their studies.  Making education compulsory would be merely a needless encroachment on our freedom.

But the existence of child labour would seem to indicate that at least some parents are not as rational as us. But these parents are not really irrational. First of all, child labour is not a new thing; it was a normal part of feudal society. India’s socialist policies didn’t help change this. These policies led to continued poverty and (hence) to rapid population growth. These policies also made education quite meaningless: the low-quality ‘education’ delivered by village and small town schools was worthless. Therefore, parents in remote villages rationally chose to provide their children with vocational and life-sustaining skills instead. You and I would have likely done the same in their place. As India becomes free and the quality of education improves parents will be able to can see the direct relationship between good-quality school education and the future income of their children. At that point parents even in the remotest villages will voluntarily send their children to school instead of making them work. We already see this happening with private English medium schools sprouting in villages across India. Parents are not fools. They recognise value when they see it. So let us respect their decisions. 

A free society automatically creates incentives for parents to educate their children. In a free society it is not necessary to legislate mandatory education. 

I’m nowhere in the league of the person I’ll shortly mention, below, but one thing I would like to make clear to my Indian brothers and sisters: I do NOT see myself as a failure, for I stand for a cause far greater than me: the LIBERTY and greatness of India. I have overcome anything that has come in the way, and am still struggling each day to push myself to the limit. To me failure means not trying. It does not mean not achieving a desired goal. I don’t care about the results. I care ONLY for trying to do the right thing.

 

The charge against me (above, by one commentator) is this: “Sanjeev who has done what?–tried to start a party for 14 years and failed is the shining example to the youth of India”.

 

I’m guilty as charged. But I want to humbly suggest that the goal I have for India is far greater than the goal set for India by ANYONE ELSE I know, a goal yet for which I’m merely one small fading light of a mud lamp in the journey.

 

My journey, my mud lamp may fade and burn out, but the goal I have for India WILL be met. By those determined to achieve it. Showing the goal, even if very faintly today, is my job.

 

And now comes an example which I know will be readily distorted by many (for people will imagine that I’m trying to compare myself to the great man whose name I will now cite), but I am offering this example NOT as proof of my “greatness” (which is totally non-existent – as the commentator above rightly pointed out) but as proof that an idea is always greater than the man.

 

When Ramakrishna died he had just a handful of disciples of whom Vivekananda was one. They had virtually nothing, barely surviving in a ramshackle broken house. But look at what was achieved. The RK mission is the result of the IDEA that RK represented. I’m no RK (let me repeat once again!), but I’m talking about an idea for India that needs not one but 1500 Vivekanandas.

 

It takes only ONE Vivekananda to set fire to the fabric of tradition and oppression and to lead to new achievement for an entire country. Imagine what 1500 Vivekanandas can achieve.

 

I may fail (according to your commentator’s definition), and may fail again – and again. But in the end it will take just one Vivekananda (figuratively speaking) to set the nation free.

 

Instead of gloating at my failure, young commentator, why don’t you take on the work I’m trying to do – and succeed? Just to show how utterly incompetent I am. Make India free, make it prosperous, make it an honest place. Make it a place for us to be proud of.

 

That will be a good lesson for me about my own incompetence and inability (to succeed). You show me, young man. I’m happy to be taught by you.

 

S

But now things are no longer obvious. The truth is now being confounded by a new ethic, whereby hypocrisy is elevated to a higher pedestal than the truth.

First, who is wahsarkar? No one knows. Whether he/she is an Indian citizen (I hope), FBI agent or KGB stooge (I hope not!), no one knows. But somehow this person has suddenly formed some strong views about me – a person who is totally open about the truth and calls a spade a spade, regardless of consequences. Apparently my honesty is not desirable. The support of corrupt Congress by ("honest") Murthy is more desirable. 

These are the people (like "wahsarkar") who claim that India doesn't have good governance but when someone steps forward and starts organising the alternative that India needs, they feel they are better off by running after the chamchas of Congress. 

This anonmyous blogger has taken offence at my recent criticism of N.Murthy and started lecturing me on twitter. I'm presenting below the series of twitter comments exchanged, to set the record straight and to ensure that I'm not bullied by someone who is a blind fan of a Congress-lover. But before I do that, Mr/Ms. Wahsarkar, may I formally challenge you to:

a) disclose your identity (since I have told everyone about myself)

b) tell me why you are such a GREAT fan of MMS and Sonia?

c) provide me with your detailed moral philosophy, according to which we must not speak the truth but live in a "grey" zone.

Let me say that I had so far formed a good impression about your blog, but your recent obfuscation of the truth and strong support of a man who publicly praises the corrupt has disappointed me. I trust you'll realise your error and fix it in the coming years.

Let's be clear: we (you and I) should ATTACK AND OVERTHROW THE CORRUPT, not consort with them, nor praise them.

And if Murthy is totally unwilling to help us in this job of reforming India, but has instead determined to SUPPORT THE CORRUPT then he, too, MUST BE OVERTHROWN from his elevated pedestal. He preaches "values" but then commends MMS. This is intolerable. I have NO sympathy for such an approach, regardless of how rich he may be or how many jobs he may have created.

I expect a John Galt from our industry leaders, a JRD Tata. Anything less I don't care for. 

TWITTER COMMENTS

wahsarkar Wah Sarkar 

@sabhlok Why is NRN obligated to back any political party?He leads by example – formed a multi-billion dollar entity w/o any corruption.

sabhlok Sanjeev Sabhlok 

@wahsarkar If he praises the KING and QUEEN of corruption (MMS/SG) he should stop talking about corruption. Much better for his reputation.

wahsarkar Wah Sarkar 

@sabhlok He's spoken against various govt policies also many times.Silly to criticize him for just having a political opinion.

sabhlok Sanjeev Sabhlok

@wahsarkar I would rather he not criticise, if he is then going to consort with the corrupt. That's extreme hypocrisy, which I detest!

wahsarkar Wah Sarkar 

@sabhlok The world is not black & white.

sabhlok Sanjeev Sabhlok

@wahsarkar So you believe it is a good thing to be a hypocrite? A new moral system based on the principle of deception? Please teach me.

wahsarkar Wah Sarkar 

@sabhlok Learn from yourself.How one preaches about electoral India by being an Australian citizen.Yet you are not a hypocrite.

sabhlok Sanjeev Sabhlok

@wahsarkar I'm an overseas India citizen and you know I'll take back my citizenship should FTI get going. Why are you misleading yourself?

At the outset let me note that this topic makes me a bit queasy. It is a difficult topic because it touches many different emotional chords. I can well understand, at the rational level, that man has the biological capacity to eat virtually anything, and has done so ever since his evolution from (possibly) a vegetarian ape. Also, therefore, that eating a particular animal meat is ultimately a matter of historical accident. 

And yet, the thought of eating an unfamiliar animal (which one has not eaten since childhood, say) can create quite seriously queasy sensations in any person (I'm excluding vegetarians from this group who probably feel queasy even at the thought of eating an egg). 

This is all so inconvenient, so steeped in irrationality. And these queasy feelings are not to be treated lightly. These can give rise to a strong sense of taboo and revulsion, which can create great differences among people, differences that are impossible to bridge through rational discourse, differences that can potentially lead to great violence among men. Just because they eat different foods.

Food is that important. That emotive. 

What does all this imply for public policy? Well, that's the question before us.

Everyone knows that in India (among Hindus), cow meat is anathema. The cow is held to be sacred (despite the many debates/ disputes about this claim). And yet in parts of India (e.g. Meghalaya, where I worked for about a year and half; and in Mizoram) beef is widely eaten and commonly sold in small butcher shops (e.g. along the main road in Shillong). 

And all over the world, cow meat is treated as a prime delicacy. The Japanese even eat raw cow meat (prime kobe beef can cost up to $700 per kilo).

On the other hand, dog meat (which creates great revulsion in the West) is also eaten in parts of India, in particular in Nagaland but also in some other NE states. I have mentioned before on this blog (in some other context) how a Minister from Nagaland was grateful to be "allowed" to collect stray dogs from the Guwahati Circuilt House in 1984 (a place for which I had responsibility for the allocation of rooms and maintenance). I recall the Minister's jeep going off blaring its siren, with a few barking dogs stowed away in at the back of the jeep, on the way to Dimapur. I learnt later that Naga tribals eat virtually anything that moves, including all kinds of birds. Among various meats, dog meat is a delicacy.

This culture of eating dogs probably comes from Eastern Asia where dog meat is largely considered to be a delicacy (see this Wikipedia entry).

And yet, while most people in the West think it to be odd that (most) Hindus don't eat beef, they immediately forget that they have similar (or stronger) queasy feelings when considering the thought of someone eating dog meat.

One man's meat is ACTUALLY another man's poison.

In Australia you can eat and sell kangaroo, deer and rabbit meat but you'd be imprisoned if you offer dog meat for sale:

In most states and territories [in Australia] it is not an offence to eat cats and dogs. South Australia is the only state which definitively prohibits the consumption of meat derived from a cat or dog, including the killing of a cat or dog for such purpose (see below table).

The sale of cat and dog meat however, is prohibited in all states and territories under the various statutes which govern the production of meat. While these laws do not expressly state that selling cat and dog meat is an offence, the effect of the regulatory regimes they create serves to achieve this end. A person or business that processes meat intended for sale and human consumption must be registered or licensed under the relevant state or territory meat production legislation. A condition of this registration or licence is that the particular meat processing complies with a Regulation or an adopted Standard or Code.

In the face of all this confusion, here's a thoughtful editorial from China Daily:

People in China have been eating dog meat for a long time, even though it's a relatively expensive affair. During the Spring and Autumn Period (770-476 BC), King Goujian of the Yue Kingdom, before going to war against the Wu Kingdom, awarded dogs to women who gave birth to boys and pigs to those who gave birth to girls. Dog meat cost more than pork even then.

Many consider dog meat not only a delicacy, but also to have medicinal properties. Bencao Gangmu (or Compendium of Materia Medica), the seminal work of medical and pharmaceutical expert Li Shizhen of the Ming Dynasty (1368-1644), describes dog meat as warm, yang-nourishing and especially beneficial for the kidneys and stomach.

Instead of finger-pointing at each, people grown up in different cultures should be more open-minded.

Dietary habits differ from country to country and region to region, and there cannot be a rule of thumb for all. Some dog lovers distinguish dogs from other animals because of their intelligence and special relationship with humans.

But there are similar many stories about cows, horses, sheep and pigs, too.

How can it be morally and culturally acceptable to eat pork, chicken, mutton, beef, fish and other animals but not dog meat?

No matter how one thinks about it, there is no ONE correct rule on this matter, no logical method by which to pick certain animals for our food, and other animals for our worship. Regretfully I must agree that the Chinese Daily is correct. 

The only sensible course, therefore, for governments is to regulate ONLY for health outcomes, not for the kind of (animal) meat eaten. All that a government can do is to regulate for prevention of cruelty to animals, including at the time of slaughter (if applicable), failing which appropriate punishment could be imposed. But the people of the "secular" West want more: 

RSPCA Australia believes the consumption of cat and dog meat should be expressly prohibited in statute. Cats and dogs hold a specific place in Australian society as companion animals. Eating cats and dogs is therefore offensive to mainstream Australian cultural values. [Source]

I'm afraid I'm unable to distinguish this argument from the argument made by Baba Ramdev to ban cow slaughter in India, or the arguments made by any typical Hindu fanatic. I would argue that if RSPCA wants to prohibit cat and dog meat (not that I wish to eat these!), then it must FIRST demand the prohibition of beef, kangaroo meat, goat and sheep meat, chicken and rabbit meat. And fish. 

Let this be known clearly: there is NO coherent logical argument to pick between animals.

Either ALL animal meat must be prohibited, or NONE.

However, it is not quantity but quality that matters. The quality of science education in India is generally poor, even dismal. As a science graduate (from DAV College Jullundur) and National Science Talent scholar (in my time that was supposed to be a prestigious thing: don't know its status today), I can assure you that when I went to Australia and USA to study and compared the quality of libraries and other facilities with the ones I had to use in India, I realised how terribly ordinary my own education had been. 

It is almost mandatory for Indian science students to study abroad before they begin to truly grasp the meaning of science. So few of them, however, get the opportunity to study abroad; and most who go abroad to study never return home, leaving a significantly lower calibre of "scientists" behind.

(True, as  part of my summer school for science talent scholars I studied for one month each in IIT Madras and Pune University, and yes, I do think that IIT Madras had a reasonably world class library in 1978, but that was never the typical standard of the Indian education system.)

Given this poor quality it is not surprising that Indians dramatically under-perform in their scientific output, despite the huge number of science graduates. A key indicator of the scientific prowess of a nation is the number of scientific papers its citizens publish, and on that indicator India languishes in the 11th position, producing barely 2.5 per cent of the world's scientific output, compared to its 20 per cent share of world population. 

China has, on the other hand, made dramatic improvements to its science performance over the past 10 years, and now contributes a robust 9.4 per cent of scientific output in the world. At this rate it will surely become the world's science powerhouse in the next decade.

The table below is sourced from here (the US NSF report Science and Engineering Indicators 2012, January 18, 2012)

Note that Australia, with a population merely 1/50th of India's, produces nearly the same number of papers as India does. 

Solution? We need the total privatisation of the Indian higher education system (as proposed in BFN), to achieve the competitiveness essential to the world's best standards.

My fear, however, is that India will dither in the hands of the corruption king and queen MMS and Sonia Gandhi, and in the meanwhile China will become such a dominant force in the world arena that India might find it impossible to catch up later, even with its best efforts. \

To prevent such an eventuality, we need good leaders to offer to the people of India who can then throw out MMS/Sonia and the communal BJP – the parties and "leaders" who have miserably failed India.

Join FTI. Let's get good governance (which includes the best PRIVATISED education system) in India.

Unfortunately, Indian governments over the past six decades have perhaps been the BIGGEST EVER oppressors.

"Custodial killings, police abuses including torture" are common. Also, as reported by Human Rights Watch recently: 

the Indian government took few steps to "prosecute abusive soldiers, undertake needed police reforms, or bring an end to torture [Source]

I'm not sure what is the total number of innocent people killed by Indian government forces, but it would easily run into the tens of thousands.

Not all these were oppressive killings. Many were "collateral damage", as part of legitimate efforts to curb communal violence or terrorism. But there have been a very large number of direct, illegitimate killings. And sometimes, those who have  planned and ordered these killings have been promoted to very senior positions. (Refer also to these case studies of communal violence used as teachings aids in LBSNAA. These studies indicate extensive illegitimate actions by the police (primarily against Muslims)). India is clearly one of the most violent places on the earth.

On top of these violent acts were the insidious oppressions of Nehruvian socialism – through which tens of millions of children have died (and continue to die) from starvation and/or disease, and the potential of hundreds of millions of people cut short.

It is difficult to estimate the costs to India of Indian rule, but it must be huge. 

India has not benefited from Indian rule. It is time to overthrow socialism and our corrupt political parties and build a party of freedom and integrity.

JS This is the second recent tragedy to my knowledge involving a lobbyist (read ideologue) for home births. Best practice surely would be to have a 'home birthing' suite colocated at a hospital for when things go wrong?

Mum dies in home birth tragedy 

Sanjeev Sabhlok J, this is an unexpected comment – from you. Public policy should ensure people can choose and are (through the education system primarily) informed about consequences. Mandating that home birthing be colocated with a hospital is an illiberal policy response.

MA So long as they keep it in the home. Keep it all: the labour, the birth, the complications, the death. That we in the medical profession should have to pick up from were they left off when the proverbial hits the fan infuriates me.

JS Rubbish. It a question of science over pomo superstition particularly when it's the child who often dies when things go wrong. I am not the ideological clone of the home birth fanatics.

JS I see your point, M.

MA Yes, I also see the point that the innocent child has nov choice in the matter.

KM I know a paramedic who hates being called to the aftermath of home births gone wrong, the midwives always leave it so late to call that either baby or mother or both are unsalvageable.

Sanjeev Sabhlok ‎"the innocent child has no choice in the matter". The question is whose child is it? What is the status of "ownership" of the society in the child?

NGT Any/all govt funding of home birthing should be abolished. It's an appalling practice that is killing babies

Sanjeev Sabhlok Agreed, N – on the first part of your statement. But why would you (through the government) fund anyone having babies? Why should someone who wants to have a baby at home have to pay for others to have babies in hospital? Wherefrom comes this great confidence in the ability of a government as a protector of babies? And whose babies are these? Did the government bear them in its womb for nine months?

NGT Well I don't believe in socialized medicine, so I think we substantially agree. Abortion needs to be banned in the same respect murder is – the stats does have a role (based on Millian conceptions of liberty) to protect the lives of the babies

Sanjeev Sabhlok N, I'm glad we agree that socialised medicine is the source of this conflict, where people feel their taxes are being spent on things they don't agree with – which causes angst. 

On the theory of abortion there are a few key aspects. First, the scientific question of when does a bunch of amorphous cells become human. For this see my draft manuscript The Discovery of Freedom (http://discovery.sabhlokcity.com/ ). Second, a baby that is still within a mother does not become a legal person till it displays itself to the world, and breathes more than its first breath. This is merely the practical demonstration of its existence as an independent human. At that stage the baby and mother are now separate entities, entitled to two different passports, and laws regarding murder of a person immediately come into force.

So, on your own baby's future – till it is born – you retain full control and should. However, your desire to control the behaviour of the others – mothers of babies which you did not bear nor bring up in your womb – could leave you open to the charges of illiberal paternalism (at the least) or coercive statism (at the most). 

Till a baby is born we all have to grin and bear it, regardless of our views, for the baby is part of the mother, not an independent entity. It is not our call to control what goes on inside the body of a woman. Let nature take its course till the baby is born and breathes. Then we can step in if the mother deliberately strangles her baby.

The government should leave the industry free to compete and work out all possible ways to survive profitably. Profitability is the only way of growth.

Instead of focusing purely on the removal of bad regulation, however, Vijay Mallya seems to have gone tipsy with a very clumsy suggestion:

Vijay Mallya, promoter of the cash-strapped Kingfisher Airlines, has demanded that state governments “underwrite seats” — or buy a certain number of seats — in every flight of Air India and private carriers. [Source]

He needs to get sensible advisors, else his reputation will soon become dust.

In the absence of “role models” to look up to, youngsters in India are idolising the corrupt and the dishonest, feels software icon N R Narayana Murthy.

“The number of role models that our youngsters can look up to is decreasing. How many people in our public life can you be proud of for honesty, courage, commitment and hardwork? And that number is dwindling,” said the co-founder of Infosys Ltd.

“Our youngsters don’t have role models to look up to and therefore, and sadly because of corruption, some of the people who are doing exactly the opposite — dishonest, deceit, ‘chalta hai’ and all of that… they are becoming more and more powerful… they are becoming wealthier,” Murthy said. [Source]

Not one IT billionaire of India (or even millionaire) has behaved differently to non-IT billionaires of India who have BENEFITED from corruption . From your ACTIONS (NOT TALK please!!) I simply can't distinguish you from the Ambanis.

I actually have started respecting the Ambanis more than you. At least they are not hypocrities. Masters of bribing politicians to achieve success, they don't talk about moral values nor condemn India's corruption. They are at least HONEST about their dishonesty.

Your honesty is clearly a sham. You have NOT supported any alternative political movement for reform but keep babbling and complaining. I'm tired of people like you. What's the point of babbling thus?

Does that make you a role model? No.

Does it help India in any way? No.

PUT YOUR MONEY WHERE YOUR MOUTH IS – and ACT! – or PLEASE stay home, now. You have proven yourself IRRELEVANT to India's future through your INACTION.

Locke's essay was pathbreaking in many fields including cognitive psychology, linguistics and epistemology. His essay, along with others like Francis Bacon's Novum Organum (and even Descartes's s Discourse on the Method), contributed to  establishment of the institution of critical thinking, of which the scientific method is one component. I have TWO separate chapters on critical thinking in DOF - work in progress, though.

Without being able to think independently, and without knowing how to think, the West would never have broken free from the heavy chains of its bondage to the Church – which was (often) more intolerant and more violent than even the most fanatic elements of Islam today (I need not remind readers, for instance, of the total eradication – through massacre and deportation – of the Moors in Spain, for instance).

It is the process of understanding (a) how we acquire knowledge, and (b) how we should think in order to maximise knowledge, that marks the birth of the modern era.

Locke was a major contributor to the modern era from all angles. In particular, he denied the value of pure reason that is untested on the touchstone of experience and observation. 

Note that similar thoughts had been expressed in ancient India by Charvaka, but unfortunately these thoughts soon disappeared in the sands of time. To Locke, therefore, all of us owe the origin of the modern society.

I cited an excellent article on the subject of knowledge (here) on FB recently, and wrote a comment in response to a discussion. Harsh Vora believes that my comment deserves its separate post. I have no objection to doing so, given FB's ordinary search feature. Also, what one writes on FB is lost forever. On the other hand, a good blog is likely to remain behind, and engage the wandering passerby in discussion well after one is dead and gone.

And so, for whatever it is worth here's the relevant extract of my very ordinary and routine comment on FB:

Sanjeev Sabhlok (linking to this article: http://www.quantumdiaries.org/2012/01/27/the-role-of-the-individual-in-science-and-religion/)

In science "nothing is gained by going to the older sources. Science advances and the older writings lose their pedagogical value. This is because in science, the ultimate authority is not a person, but observation."

Sudeep Shetty Pretty Interesting … If older source (science) are true we can pickup the basic from old source and always make it better and stronger …

Sanjeev Sabhlok Sudeep, in every science, the basics are automatically adopted into basic education. Aryabhata's work (zero) is taught in class 1, Newton's work in class 12 or first year BSc, Einstein's work in third year BSc (or earlier), and so on. By the time a person has finished graduation, he is now just about 30 years away from the frontier of knowledge. By the time post graduation is completed, he is 10 years from the fronter, and by the time PhD is completed, he is AT or beyond the frontier. 

Therefore, except for the student who wants to learn the history of science, there is no value in going back to Aryabhata or Newton.

Only religion goes back to what was said thousands of years ago. That is because it ASSUMES that what was said is true. There is NO verification at any stage of the content of religious scriptures.