No Ground Beneath Their Feet

``From this it would seem that the boys find security in what is expected of them and the girls in what they expect. ``

Very important observation. Most violence and aggression, lack of sensitivity comes from the assumption that women are /ought to be passive.

Men do and women are done.

Aisha Sarwari

Re: # 77 by Khurram.

Done.

By the way, it was very nice having this conversation with you. Hopefully, over time, we get to know each other. In that case it will be nice to have a beer with you.

Re #76.
OK. I see your point. Let`s just agree to disagree on the legalization issue.

Re: # 75 by Khurram

Sure. But again there is already a market there. The price that you have to pay for a crime is the bribe that you pay the authorities. If you want to reduce crime you can surely increase punishments. But how about monopolizing the `authority`. That way bribes are very high and crimes low as compared to a situation with ``competitive authority`` where bribes are small and crime high.

Khurram, do not get me wrong. I think we agree to a large extent. Furthermore, I am ethically averse to the `trades` we are talking about here. I am also stretching things a lot to get my point across. However, I want you to see the other side of the picture too. Cigarettes are bad, but there is a market coupled with collective action in terms of dissipating information. As a result, in countries where collective action is strong we have a decline in smoking. As the same time smokers like me do not have to stop smoking and go off our bonkers :-) I do not want society to stop me from smoking. Yes, because of campaigns, I am aware of its bad consequence on me and I am trying to stop on my own free will.

Re #74,

Sometimes coercive criminal acts (theft, robbery) can also be ``least ethically wrong`` choice. That is not an argument for thier legalization. Society has to work to correct such situations, not accept them.

Re: # 73 by Khurram,

You are right, I have not argued against certain exclusions. However, I have highlighted a paradox regarding ethics imposed by a society with heterogenous constituents. It is as follows: How can a society select on the behalf of an individual when all the options facing the individual are considered to be ethically wrong? The individual, by himself, can make such a choice - he choses that which is the least ethically wrong. But the society cannot! This is because the constituents of the society would have different ethical rankings over the options. But if we are to leave individuals to make the choice then, under certain conditions, we know that welfare will be optimized (in a certain sense) under markets.

Re # 72 by GT

Thanks for a very thoughtful reply. I think there are 2 related issues that should not be confused. First, should some things be excluded from designation as private property? I think there is a consensus in most societies that our body parts,our children , our liberty and our sexualty are not to be traded as commodities. You have not really argued against such an exclusion. You have considered the 2nd issue, which is what happens when these exclusions are violated. You have correctly identified the root cause as the failure of collective action by society to provide a safety net to the individuals who resort to selling themselves. Legalization, for you, is a practical solution because it partially relieves the suffering of the victim i.e. the seller. But it also gives the buyer a free hand to create a market where the vulnerable can be exploited. That is why I prefer the Swedish approach. Selling is decriminalized, giving relief to the seller. The buyer is punished for his role in creating the market. And, society as a whole tries to correct it`s failure by allocating funds and efforts to rehabilitate the victim. And as for the practical side of it, the approach seems to be successful in its goals.

Simple legalization would be an abdication of responsibility for creating the conditions in the first place. Also, once you legalize prostitution you would be on the slippery slope to legalizing much else that is considered beyond private property.

Re: # 54 by khurram

You make a powerful statement when you say:

``I consider prostitution analogous to selling of organs for profit. Some things in life should be beyond economic transactions. ``

Free trade requires private property. While the benifit of private property is generally accepted, Nations have put limits on it. Even in the US we do not have property rights over our own body. After all, since slavery is banned we cannot sell ourselves to slavery even if we want to. Why? Forget slavery, but many types of long term contracts are deemed to be illegal in the US (common law) and France (civil law). Again why? It is here that ethics come into play and we do not know for sure where is the boundary between ethics and economics. Your point is that trading in sex is beyond economic transaction or in other words is ethically wrong and hence such trade should not be legalized. I understand that you do not disagree with the fact that for purely economic reasons it is nothing but a trade which has the potential of making both parties better off. So in what follows let me talk ethics.

Consider your arguement about body parts. Let there be an individual whose piece of land has to be given off to a creditor if he is not able to plant this year. He does not have money to buy seeds and being steeped in credit no one is willing to lend to him. He has two options: (1) let the land go and (2) sell one of his kidney and buy seeds with the money. For economic purposes let it be the case that option (2) dominates option (1). Now comes ethics. How can an outsider determine that (1) dominates (2) ethically? Suppose the individual believes that if he lets his land go then he has to migrate to a city, see his family disintigrate and above all see his only daughter turn into a prostitute. In such a situation is it OK for the individual to perceive option (2) to be ethically superior to option (1)? If so, then shouldn`t the individual get a fair price for his kidney? In other words, shouldn`t there be a market for kidneys?

Of course, a society which provides our individual with only (1) and (2) as options is not a great society to live in. We can sit in comfort and pontificate that such a society is bad, the govt. should do this and that etc. But what is this government and why is it not able to rectify matters? A little bit of thought will convince us that it is because WE, the constituents of the society, cannot or have not been able to take collective action. In such a situation, amongst other solutions, should we not allow the constituents of society to take private action? Actually, I claim, that is exactly what we have been doing in the case of prostitution. I want us to be honest about this. As a second step, I claim, legalization of prostitution, along with effective regulations which define the market, will help the private action derive fairness. There may be other solutions which are perhaps much better but they seem to be infeasible. I shall be happy to be proved wrong.

Re: # 70

Someday we must talk about etymology. I used to think Diya was a corruption of the Sanskrit Deepa (or as we say in my mother-tongue Deepam). It is very important for languages to absorb words from others. To remain pure would result in death. A living langauge has to rebuild itself over and over again.

Though I draw line at the word ``Puh-leeze``. -)

Re: # 69

more than adequate -- great translation -- Gujrati has many words fro Urdu Persian AND Arabic -- one of the common rural Indian word for light and lamp is Diya -- which actually is an Arabic word Ziya -- pronounced in Arabic as Diya -- in persian and Urdu as Ziya....!

Re: # 68
`Twas not like this
I had only desired,
it be this (that) way.

Would that be an adequate translation?

It is interesting that ``fuqut`` is phonetically similar to the Marathi ``fakt`` which also means ``only``.

Re: # 67

``fuqut`` means only -- ``sirf`` --

Re: # 66
What does ``fuqut`` mean? My knowledge of Urdu leaves much to be desired.

Re: # 64

swarrier -- I know -- as Faiz would say -- youN nu thaa maiN nay fuqut chaaha thaa youN ho jaaye

Re: # 63
Salim
A tomatoe is a toe that is given to a tom, from the olde Englyshe law , a tom, a toe. I do not know if a toe is given to a tabby.

Re: # 61

Nasah, I see where you are going, and this is something most of us have looked at, at some time or other . However it will not be considered practical. I do not know of any nation that has scaled back it`s defence expenditure unless it is under the umbrella of a much larger protector.

Neither India nor Pakistan will do it. When China exploded it`s first nuclear device in exchange for the death of around 30 million Chinese peasants it set into motion the nuclear fiasco. All our nascent nations have one thing in common. Deep rooted suspicion and distrust of each other. So forget abandoning the arms race.

Secondly if the government actively steps into this social service scheme you can bet that it will grind to a shuddering halt. The social services scheme even in the US is nowhere as good as in Scandinavia, and they are always short of money. In a large disparate nation like India it will be far more difficult to reinforce such a scheme. If anybody has to step up it is the social service organisations and the people on the street corner who must support them. Here I will agree with GT, if there is no grass roots involvement the government will be of no use. It will become another sick PSU. And I think a lot of our public are still too medieval in their thoughts to support this scheme. But in time and with more compassion ... who knows.

Our nuclear elephants are there to stay. Now I would take far more pride in the Konkan railway project. Or in the Jabalpur protheses, or the artificial heart valves made in Trivandrum . However these did not make half the news story that the bombs did.