Friday, September 22, 2006

Quis custodiet ispos custodis?

Who will watch over the guards?

Big brother. He's everywhere. Or at least wants to be. In your personal phone calls, in your private emails, heck, in your living rooms if he can. Violating every inch of personal liberty that a libertarian like you and me might have. And yet strangely, for someone who swears by libertarian principles, I find myself not too perturbed, in fact welcoming Big Brother. How do I resolve the paradox?

It is extremely simple when you realize one important thing: Pure libertarianism is a utopian concept. For me and for thousands of students from India, who grew up on a steady diet of bullshit history and opinions from the likes of left-wing historians like Romila Thapar, it had been ingrained into our thought that communism, whatever its practical implications, was a utopian concept. Over time, I have been increasingly convinced of the fallacy of this thought. Logically speaking, what would you have in an ideal world? Enforced property and wealth distribution by an extrinsic force "the Government"? Or a working and organized society where everyone has their own personal and economic liberties, to the same extent that they do not violate anyone else's? I would definitely go for the latter. And which do you think is more difficult in practical realization? An all powerful Government imposing its will? Or the realization of a peaceful and organized society that sustains itself inspite of everyone's right to their personal and economic freedom? The latter,IMHO, seems far more difficult to realize.

So, once accepted that pure libertarianism is a utopian concept, it becomes fairly easy to look beyond the Big Brother ethical dilemma. In a world replete with imperfections, utopian concepts need to be tweaked to serve practical utility. If the world were ideal, you wouldn't need Big Brother. But with security concerns rising everyday, I fear one might not have a choice. One would have to give security agencies worldwide the carte blanche to ensure the safety and security of human life as well as property. It does not mean that one has ceased to support personal liberty. It is just that as has been often touted in the case of the global softening of practical communism, we need to define practical libertarianism. To my mind, this concept would fall somewhere between conservatism and libertarianism.

Monday, September 11, 2006

I knew every inch of the cell

And the cell knew every inch of me. Except one.

An inch. It's small and it's fragile and it's the only thing in the world worth having. We must never lose it, or sell it, or give it away. We must never let them take it away from us.

V for Vendetta rocks. Period.

In a battle where there's no victory for me, I've decided to quit my PhD with my advisor and let him know about it. Apart from the day my dog died, this has to be the saddest day of my life. And as with all sad days, a period of moping shall follow. Then there will be time to pick up the pieces and figure out all over again what one must do with futile existence, one, that once, one imagined to have some purpose in the scheme of things. An existence, that one once imagined, would do good things and great things. And keep trying. Making sure always that the last inch is never compromised.

Deeply Disturbed

By this.

I don't think this is the right way to go. Unless of course they know more than is revealed in the article.