Tradition and Civilization

The blog is an attempt to defend some customs of India and to clear some misconceptions.

Support for female infanticide in Vedas?- I heard this absurd comment in a thread in the "Interfaith Dialogue" in Orkut.
I do not have any quotes from the Vedas to disprove this, but I am quoting from the Smritis , which are based on Vedas.
"Both Devala and Yajanavalkya opine that a raped woman cannot be divorced as she becomes pure after menstruation. The latter adds that the wife can be abandoned if she conceives a baby from another person, kills a brahmin or insinuates against her husband; if she is a habitual drinker, suffers from prolonged illness, is cunning, treacherous, sterile, exceptionally extravagant, or uncouth. But even in these cases she should be fed and clad well and properly looked after.
Source- http://esamskriti.com/html/inside.asp?cat=738&subcat=737&cname=hindu_women_as_life_partner

The quote was to show that even in the case of killing a brahman or drinking wine- 2 of the 5 mahapatakas( sins without expiation), a woman was not given capital punishment but her minimum wants were fulfilled.
The penalty for murder( of anyone) is death( unless the murderer belongs to some special category). Even Brahmans are liable to death-penalty if they murder a woman. And woman cannot be given capital punishment.

Source- http://books.google.com/books?id=Z070NJdQFOwC&pg=PA335&lpg=PA335&dq=capital-punishment+%2B+Dharmashastras&source=web&ots=naM2p26F-7&sig=vx7m1sCzqu4doIIAH1BxSEwTN4c#PPA341,M1
Hence, killing a woman simply because she is a woman was downright unimaginable in Vedic standards.

Brahmans supported Sati- All Dharma shastras say that Stri Hatya is equivalent to Brahmana Hatya. Thus Brahminical belief had nothing to do with Sati. Sati was popular in those areas where Brahminical hold was week.Infact, no one was forced to burn alive. It was the decision of the woman to go to Sati OR to lead a widow's life.. Most of them preferred to lead a widow's life.Sati was by defn. voluntary.

Brahmans led to the slavery of Indians- Brahmans had neither the muscle nor the military power to coerce others. If others believed them, it was their fault.

Anarcho-capitalism

Anarcho-capitalism has two central doctrines-

1. No person has the right to commit aggression against any other person
2. If my labour is mixed with something I have the first right to claim it.

These positions lead to several problems , which are:-
Inherent contradiction:-

In procreating , the labour of the two parents is mixed and the event takes place within the body of one( the mother).Assuming sovereignty over the body, the child is the property of the mother as the child was born in mother's womb and by the fusion of her eggs with the father's sperm.Unless the father makes an explicit claim to the child, it is assumed that his sperms were given freely.

I have the right to do anything with my property. Hence, I can commit aggression against my child. But this violates the axiom that No person has the right to commit aggression against any person.

Hence, the anarcho-capitalism position is mutually contradictory .

Destructive of civilization.:- No person has the right to commit aggression against any person.(Anarcho-capitalism position)
Aggression means causing or trying to cause any change in my body without my free-will.
No person is born with his/her free will.
Being born causes a change in the body( the body is created) and hence it constitutes an aggression.
Thus all parents are liable to prosecution for being parents .
As humans are selfish, all will sue their parents and win damages.
Hence, no one will procreate.

Development of monopoly in Security:- Security will tend to get monopolized. This reasoning is not difficult to see.
The chief functions of (private)security service are- preventing crime, investigating crime and collecting dues.
Assuming that one person can oversee 2 sq. km and over that area 1000 households live.It is assumed that 1 office is required for every 1000 households.
If a service, say A has monopoly over an area, it can oversee 1000 households using 1 person. On the other hand if a service,say B has say 1000 households, spread over 4 sq. km, it will require 2 men to do the same.
Assuming equal wages, A will save on costs.

Similarly, the average distance of a customer household from the office is greater for B than A. Hence , even for equal fees, the customer's costs will be more for B as compared to A.As the distance, from the target households increases, the costs of investigating also increases. Hence, A gets benefited.

The collection costs also increase for B as compared to A as its employees have to travel greater distance or they have to set up more collection points for collecton from the similar customer base.

Say , all people of an area agree that entry after midnight will be considered as a breach of property.Now, one person enter household C which is not serviced by B. But, its neighboring household is serviced by B. Will the beat constable wait to see, the future activities of the person ?The person may enter a household serviced by B. If yes, the beat constable will lose time with no certainity of apprehending a "thief".If no, then there may be an avoidable robbery.The costs of investigating are likely to be higher than the costs of preventing. In case of A , the beat constable would have simply apprehended the "thief" and thereby saved time and money(probably)

Hence, a local monopoly seems to be the most important possibility as the service holder will be able to provide superior service at lower costs for itself.

Once a monopoly has been formed, it will charge very high fees( say charge of services is 4 times the cost of servces) . The customers will have no option except to leave. Else, if they do not pay, the services will be withheld and some unidentified goons( the employees of the service providor) will decamp with all property at night and destroy what they cannot take.

It may be assumed that other players will band together . They will calculate that by destroying the monopoly, they will get access to new markets.If they band together , either they will carve the whole area into smaller monopolies or all will have the right to compete in the areas held by the previous monopoly.

The monopoly, will not leave its profits so easily. It will fight. And the area will get damaged.

If the winners decide to parcel the bigger monopoly into smaller parts, the customers will not benefit. If they decide to allow competition, they will first calculate the cost and benefits of their action-
Assuming the monopoly provider is charging 500 units/year.
Cost of providing service per person is 100 units.
Any player who enters the market will have to charge less than 500. Now, as more than one player has broken the monopoly - all of them will be competitors in the new market. Hence, the total price charged by all players will fall substantially below 500, say 200.
So, for every unit of cost the new players will gain 1 unit.
But the old player will lose 4 units.
Assumption- The old player is rady to invest 3000 units/person in "defending" the city.
The other players will have to invest ,atleast an equivalent amount( for practical purposes , they will have to invest more)
The other players will investing >3000 units/person , only if they believe the future cash-flows will more than compensate for the investment.
Now,before investing every company checks the NPV( Net Present Value) of investments.
Assuming the companies will get 10% return on investment, if they made the investment elsewhere.
The annual cash-flow required , so as not to make a loss on the investment is 300 units/person/year .( Assuming no increase in cash-flow)
Anticipated cash-flow is only 100 units/ person/year.
Hence, they will never invest the money.
On the other hand, as the monopoly is still getting 400 units/person/ year, it can make the investment.
Hence, monopoly will not be challenged.Thus anarcho-capitalism can never provide security as security will tend to get monopolized and once monopolized , it will not be challenged, unless the competitors want to enforce a similar monopoly.