Let me explain this more clearly ... “department of atomic energy has taken a decision to apply of nuclear energy for peaceful uses”.
who has taken this decision? – You are mixing up. Department is not a society, it is an administrative unit with a specific
mandate and a specific method of action. Regardless of how the department head feels or the clerks think, the department can not be diverted from that mandate. Your example does not stand.
Obviously, as the members of society change, these norms will have to be reinforced by the new constituents. They either agree
to the old norms or form their new set of norms. Then
... social norms are continuously evolving since there is a continuous induction of individuals. It is only in such a case that the society is progressive. – How would you define a progressive society? A society becomes “progressive” because of it’s norms, is not it? You are missing the point. I am not contesting the evolution of norms, I am questioning the en-masse disapproval of them in the name of the “individual rights”. Stick to the point.
How ever, ... individual will neither agree upon nor follow the norms defined by the majority ... – But such cases are not
encouraged by the most members of the society.

This happens in two cases. (1) When visionaries are born ... after a period of time, people start realizing the truth in what the master is saying and start following him.
At times, it makes sense to most of the members of the society that some norms have become useless. Those whom you are calling visionaries
are not only intellectuals but also talented in mass communication. There would be many who would disagree to the norms that makes no sense
at a particular time, but only those who can convince the masses succeed. In a sense, their struggle and their subsequent victory
establishes the value of the new norms they help define. It helps a society to promote visionaries, but then only people who succeed in
their struggle with social orthodoxy are the known as visionaries to the later generation. How would society identify a visionary and give
him his rights? Society can not do that, great leaders would earn their rights anyway. That is the character of the successful social movements.

(2) Some one is not able to appreciate the value of the social norms formed by a collective decision of the constituents. – It
is undeniable that not all individuals in the society have the same appreciation of the norms. But, those who do not, are not well
appreciated by the society either.

I suppose, this question will not arise when FTI is ruling, because members of FTI are supposed to be visionaries – So
all are visionaries? If vision is so readily available, dear, would it be so valuable?

If they are not, anarchy will follow (not worse than what is already there). Then, the society has to wait to see the light of the
day until new visionaries are born. I do not think this is any new phenomenon. – Anarchy will follow if all norms are allowed to be
destroyed and then no new norms takes place. That is the meaning of the anarchy. When a society lacks the intellectuals/communicators per
excellence, it would do better to follow the existing norms so that it can save itself. Also, are you trying to say that we are in anarchy?

Social norms are normally unwritten rules, unless something causes a major disharmony in the society, in which case a law takes
birth. Hence, normally the individual constituents, who form or accept the social norms, follow these. It is only when a norm is converted
in to law that government agencies come in to picture to ascertain that the law is followed/implemented. – No, most laws are
somewhat codification of the accepted social norms of that age. The English common law in the late medival period, for example, contained
rules such as death to any Christian who converted to Islam. Such rules have gone out of fashion because today it hurt the social
sensibilities of the people who accept constitution founded on the basis of same English Common law. So, if law to rule out
all norms is allowed (which is codification of individualism anyway), then it means that the enforcer of the law would consider
themselves not bound by any such norms and therefore an out-of-control bureaucracy gets formed.

Government is formed by the chosen representatives of the society. Hence, if it is actually so, it is representing the views of
majority of the constituents of the society, at least in an ideal situation. – So care to tell us, what happens in a
not-so-ideal situation? Do you have a practical example of such an ideal situation?

I think, these questions become redundant once we understand that the society is formed by its constituents and social norms are the norms formulated/accepted by these constituents, and not those imposed by the precursors of the constituent members. Once an individual has been a part of this process, the question of infringing its right does not come. – There is a major fallacy in that claim. When individuals form a society they define the norms. When individuals join an existing society, they accept the existing norms. Existing norms can be replaced only when they no longer makes sense and it is felt by most members of the society. The point is not about replacing the norms, the point here is to show that there exists a need for the norms and no matter how fashionable it is, in the name of individual rights, we just can not allow all norms to be flouted without any reason.

(If we have to follow the norms of our precursors, we will not be discussing this issue on internet. There would have been other methodologies including discussing mentally without writing or communicating verbally, as our fore fathers might have done). We have witnessed the maximum evolution of these social norms in our lifetime as no other society might have experienced so far, thanks to the revolution caused by IT, the satellite communication, and other major inventions which are taking us to new heights phenomenally. - Ooopss, what is the new height? Technology is still a tool, internet creates mass communication easier and more affordable. Regardless of the quality of an idea, technology & internet can magnify the impact of it. But these tools can not generate a new idea. Their impact on quality of life is undenaiable. But impact on social interaction or progress? Doubtful.

Again, this is not something new to us. Normally, such different societies either by free will or because of “social obligations” do not interact/interfere in each other’s activities. Again, that is by choice of the individual constituents. I see. So what is the guarantee that they will not interfere with each other? Who determines a good rule book for them?
If some one does not follow the norms, he/she faces the good or bad consequences. – Suddenly, norms are required, eh? How about individual liberty and allowing them to hurt any norm of the society they choose? Is not that my point you are disagreeing with?
I believe that my liberty ends where your liberty starts. Please read the FTI basics document carefully. It does not advocate freedom without responsibility. It is a freedom with accountability. – Thanks for the advise, I usually read carefully. Did the document explain what does it mean by accountability? What is the “reasonable” limit of individual freedom exactly? I have quoted the exact sentence. Would you mind showing me the place in the document where it limits the individual liberty?

When I talk of equality, it is amongst equals. – I see. What do you mean by equals. When some are equals, equality already exists, why would you want to enforce equality there?
If I am a science graduate, can I insist to be head of a financial institution because of equality? ... We will have to formulate policies on such issues. But, that will be when the FTI team is formed. I can see many options which can be taken depending upon merits of the situation. – Equal opportunity can not be contested, but I thought FTI talked about “equal treatment” which is arguably different from equal opportunity.

Wrong. A state intervention is not going to help. If one makes a mistake, and suffers, others learn by his experience or parish. It is the state intervention which makes people disabled. State intervention is needed when some natural disasters like floods, earthquakes or tsunamis occur. Or, in educating the people to take a right path. No compulsory intervention will help in the long run. – So who will educate them? According to you, government should not take the burden. Farmers are not up to the job, those who exploit situation does not want it changed. So, if government can not intervene, who would? Second, care to show us how state intervention makes people disabled? Third, If one makes a mistake, and suffers, others learn by his experience or parish – By that logic no social service organization should exist. If farmers were educated enough to make or understand that comment, they would not commit suicide, would they? It is quiet interesting to see how the future of India thinks about those who makes eating bread/rice possible for billion Indians.

Akalpita, Ashish,
I noted your responses. I would give a response as soon as time permits me. Just an FYI. My own statement:
Let it be known that this is not an effort to start out a discussion. I would like to be involved in such a discussion when I would have more time.
I started to write a small response to Anupam and then realized that I need to put points in details or the sentences can be mis-interpreted. So I expanded it in a series of questions and then forgot to edit out that statement. Sorry about that. But when I posted the questions, I expected the answers, so that is definitely a discussion. I hope that settles the inconsistency.
My original plan was not to get into a discussion about FTI but somehow got sucked into it. But, I believe that the questions I asked are important and I would like to follow up with response.

Now the response, first to your below comments:
- # 73: So what have you done about that?
- # 77: OK. Understood. So what has FTI done about it?
- # 79: So back to my original question: what have you done about it?
- # 41: Let it be known that this is not an effort to start out a discussion. I would like to be involved in such a discussion when I would have more time.
You do not have the time to engage in a discussion but you have all the time to ask repeated questions, to shoot down FTI Basic Principles, point by point, without even getting to understand the document, in word and spirit. Then you also have the time to drop reminders, pushing for a response from FTI Members, as below:
- #99: Anupam, Now that you are back, can we start where we left i.e. comment #41?
- #102: So, this means there is no-one in FTI who is going to look at the questions and answer it point-wise? I may not agree to the policies that you have written but I believed that you (i.e. FTI members) had enough understanding of your own policies to engage in a detailed discussion.

Thanks to AD and Anupam, for they have been patiently responding and clarifying to all your points. Also thanks to Sanjeev, Shantanu and Akalpita, who have spent considerable amount of time responding to your Comment # 41 & 102.

I appreciate the concerns and questions that you have raised here to seek a clarification and appreciate the time you have taken to write and share your critical views on FTI Basic Principles. Akalpita has already replied in great detail, point by point. However, my detailed and more specific response to the points under your comment # 41 would roll out in the form of individual blog-posts in due course of time on my Blog – http://ashishjauhari.blogspot.com/ – so I could use it as a reference point, easy to dig in and point to, thus avoiding repeated writings & explanations in response to similar questions time and again.

I do not quite agree with your understanding and the summary points of Core-Values and basic principles document of FTI. I would sincerely request you to please spend some more time on FTI website, read through the rich and high quality content populated there, to get a better understanding of terms like “Individual Liberty” and “Equality of opportunity”.

Your sweeping comment & justification on farmers committing suicide is far from the actual ground situation. Here again, I would request you to please do some more reading & research on this subject before making such comments. You may also like to check out an interesting blog-post on Nero’s Guests – http://ashishjauhari.blogspot.com/2010/06/neros-guests-age-of-inequality-review.html

As for your below comment # 102 about – unwashed millions:

#102: how do you expect yourself to explain your objective to the unwashed millions who are not fortunate enough to have your education, your background and your sophistication in thinking?

Let me state with my very limited interaction with the Unwashed Millions – they are simple people, uncomplicated & uncluttered, straight-forward – it would be a lot easier explaining them the concepts of “Individual Liberty” and “Equality of Opportunity”. On the contrary, it is the other breed of Educated, Argumentative, Selfish and Politically Apathetic Indians that FTI may find it really hard to win over & connect with.

#102: Your policies are more well thought out than those tired old policies of cult of Gandhi-das or confused musings of poster-boys of communalism or “let-us-hate-america-and-every-problem-will-be resolved” opportunists who call themselves lefty. However, I have a sympathetic view of the efforts of FTI because unlike many forums where people join to vent and not take a concrete step, you are trying to do something.
Thanks for the complement AND if you are serious, want to make a difference, please do consider joining FTI as a Member or a Freedom Partner and contribute to the cause.

Regards / Ashish.

Let me answer your questions point by point, sid.

First, I congratulate you for your comment @17. I read it and I thought, you have expressed very well what I would have thought to say.
You have a very good understanding of most of the issues and it is a pleasure to discuss with you, because it clears many processes in once own mind and some times adds to the knowledge also.
I did not take part in the discussion because I thought you and Anupam are doing very well in answering the questions.
Then, @102 you said
“So, this means there is no-one in FTI who is going to look at the questions and answer it point-wise? I may not agree to the policies that you have written but I believed that you (i.e. FTI members) had enough understanding of your own policies to engage in a detailed discussion.”
Please see your own opening statement @41. I repeat it: “Let me clarify the disclaimer.
Let it be known that this is not an effort to start out a discussion. I would like to be involved in such a discussion when I would have more time.”
I presumed that right now, you do not have time for the discussion, and hence, we are not supposed to discuss but rather just read your points.
But, I am wrong. You do not have time for a discussion but, you are very curious to get answers to each of your questions, point by point.
So, let me attempt to do the same. This is a disclaimer. FTI is going to formulate the policies after it has enough members on board (minimum 500, aiming to have 1500). This clearly means that FTI is a social organization, which believes in social norms and collective thinking. It is not one member of FTI who is going to formulate the policies and then others join after agreeing to follow them.
(1) I suppose, this answers your statement, “I may not agree to the policies that you have written but I believed that you (i.e. FTI members) had enough understanding of your own policies to engage in a detailed discussion.” Each one of us can entre in to a detailed discussion if it is going to benefit in formulating the policies and hence is in the interest of the nation. We are serious about our future plan of actions and hence and have time for these discussions.
So, the views expressed will be my personal views and not FTI policies.
(2) “As I stated, I did not agree to FTI’s policies. Your policies are more well thought out than those tired old policies of cult of Gandhi-das or confused musings of poster-boys of communalism or “let-us-hate-america-and-every-problem-will-be resolved” opportunists who call themselves lefty. However, I have a sympathetic view of the efforts of FTI because unlike many forums where people join to vent and not take a concrete step, you are trying to do something”.
I take it as a complement for FTI and whole heartedly thank you for that.
(3) “The problem is that if you can not explain your policies to those who are not hostile but has obvious reasons of disagreement, how do you expect yourself to explain your objective to the unwashed millions who are not fortunate enough to have your education, your background and your sophistication in thinking”?
I do not think it is a lack of expression on our part that we are not explaining our policies. It is just that right now they are individual views and not the policies. However, since one day, as it always happens, from these individual views are the policies going to evolve, and who knows, you may be one amongst those who formulate these policies (as I can see you are quite capable of doing so and hence welcome to join FTI if you agree to its basics)
Now let us come to the points you want to be answered:

“Let me clarify the disclaimer.
Let it be known that this is not an effort to start out a discussion. I would like to be involved in such a discussion when I would have more time”.
I disagree. The moment you are expecting us to answer your questions point by point, you are expecting us to entre in to a discussion. And, since no discussion is possible unless there are two sides discussing the issues, hence, you are obliged to entre in to the discussion and hence must have time for it. As it is, I can see, you are sparing a lot of time for this discussion, and hence I can perceive you are quite serious about it. It is precisely for this reason that we are also keen to make things clear to you.

“I looked at FTI basic policy document (http://freedomteam.in/files/FTI-Basic-Principles-1.0.doc ). Briefly stated, here are FTI’s core values:
1. Individual freedom is sacred
2. Equality for all is desired
3. Minimum state interference is suggested
4. Lower taxation is desired
Let me know if my summary is incorrect.”
The summary s is correct.
“Let us take a look at item 1, and the details.
Look at page 2, item 2.5 Society is subordinate to individual”.
Now here come the questions.
“[A] Society is an organization and it has a purpose”.
Agreed
“It’s purpose is to allow individuals to come together and achieve something that individual alone can not achieve”.
Agreed
“To bind together individuals, society defines certain social norms”.
Since the society is constituted by individuals, the social norms are defined by collective decision of the individuals. Society has no existence by itself.
Let me explain this more clearly. When we say “department of atomic energy has taken a decision to apply of nuclear energy for peaceful uses”. who has taken this decision? Has it been taken by the department? No, the department is not a person and hence can not take decisions. The decision is either taken by the head of the department individually or collectively in association with his colleagues.
Similarly, when we say society defines certain norms, it means that these norms are collectively agreed upon by the individual constituents of the society.
“If one allows individual rights to over-ride the society, then it means he is allowed to over-ride the social norms.”
As stated before, social norms are agreed upon by the constituents of the society. Obviously, as the members of society change, these norms will have to be reinforced by the new constituents. They either agree to the old norms or form their new set of norms.
If we agree that social norms are defined by the constituents of the society and not imposed upon them because they existed in the society formed by the earlier constituents, then the question of over-riding the social norms will not arise. How ever, there is a definite probability that some individual will neither agree upon nor follow the norms defined by the majority. This is not something new or unheard of. This happens in two cases. (1) When visionaries are born and commoners do not understand the implications of what they are saying. In such a case, after a period of time, people start realizing the truth in what the master is saying and start following him. The new set of rules or so to say, social norms are thus born. (2) Some one is not able to appreciate the value of the social norms formed by a collective decision of the constituents. Then, what you say does happen, time and again. “If one over-rides the social norms, others too follow the suit. In such a case, the society looses it’s norms and therefore loses it’s structure.”
How does FTI recognize this threat and hopes to address it?
I suppose, this question will not arise when FTI is ruling, because members of FTI are supposed to be visionaries. If they are not, anarchy will follow (not worse than what is already there). Then, the society has to wait to see the light of the day until new visionaries are born. I do not think this is any new phenomenon.
“Look at western societies and their nearly-defunct social institutions like Marriage. These social institutions exist because they serve a need.”
Perfect. I suppose, I have answered your question. If not, please feel free to get it clarified.

“[B] Who will maintain individual rights over society? Government?”

Social norms are normally unwritten rules, unless something causes a major disharmony in the society, in which case a law takes birth. Hence, normally the individual constituents, who form or accept the social norms, follow these. It is only when a norm is converted in to law that government agencies come in to picture to ascertain that the law is followed/implemented.
“Let us not forget that some individuals form government to achieve the purpose of the governance. In other words, it is a mini-society with an active purpose.”
Government is formed by the chosen representatives of the society. Hence, if it is actually so, it is representing the views of majority of the constituents of the society, at least in an ideal situation.
“If it is to protect individual rights over the rights of the society, who would ensure that the actions of the government does not infringe on the right of the individuals? In other words, can we ignore the risk of an out-of-control bureaucracy seeking to subdue right of every mini-society so that it can protect individual liberty?”
I think, these questions become redundant once we understand that the society is formed by its constituents and social norms are the norms formulated/accepted by these constituents, and not those imposed by the precursors of the constituent members. Once an individual has been a part of this process, the question of infringing its right does not come.
Which also means that social norms are continuously evolving since there is a continuous induction of individuals. It is only in such a case that the society is progressive. (If we have to follow the norms of our precursors, we will not be discussing this issue on internet. There would have been other methodologies including discussing mentally without writing or communicating verbally, as our fore fathers might have done). We have witnessed the maximum evolution of these social norms in our lifetime as no other society might have experienced so far, thanks to the revolution caused by IT, the satellite communication, and other major inventions which are taking us to new heights phenomenally.

“[C] How does the assertion of individual right over rights of society play well with social conditions prevalent in India? We are not one mono-lithic society following same religion or same culture always. We have so many often-conflicting lines of divisions among ourselves. Each of these divisions form a groups (mini-society if you will) with an active purpose.”
Again, this is not something new to us. Normally, such different societies either by free will or because of “social obligations” do not interact/interfere in each other’s activities. Again, that is by choice of the individual constituents. If some one does not follow the norms, he/she faces the good or bad consequences.
“ How does FTI propose to resolve a conflict of liberties when liberty of multiple individuals belonging to multiple societies seeking to destroy a society when liberty of some other individuals require the same society to be alive. If someone in my neighborhood plans to perform “Harinam Sankirtan” early in the morning, it is his individual liberty. However, I am a Hindu (therefore belonging to the same group that individual belongs to) and I still want to sleep in the morning peacefully. Whose individual liberties are more sacred? If my neighborhood declares that if people want to sleep, individuals can not perform “sangkirtan”, would this not be an infringement of his individual liberties? Would FTI declare such a ruling unacceptable?”
I believe that my liberty ends where your liberty starts. Please read the FTI basics document carefully. It does not advocate freedom without responsibility. It is a freedom with accountability.
“Let us move to point 2 (i.e. equality).
A thorny question. In India’s perspective, can a sharecropper from a village in Tripura use the same sanitati, on facilities that some doctor in Pune can afford (not that Pune is too good in that aspect)? Who would ensure that, Government? If yes, how is this different from socialism? If no, then does FTI agree that some basic inequalities would always exist? If yes, then how far FTI would like to work to eradicate inequality in Indian society?”
When I talk of equality, it is amongst equals. If I am a science graduate, can I insist to be head of a financial institution because of equality? When we talk of equality, it is giving equal opportunity to prove that you are equitable and hence should get similar opportunity. We can not equate non equals. If one is good in drawing, we do not insist that he/she should rather sing with one who is good in singing. We would rather say that an equal opportunity to excel in music should exist to all those who have a talent in music. Again, the question of “who will pay for the training” will come in to picture. We will have to formulate policies on such issues. But, that will be when the FTI team is formed. I can see many options which can be taken depending upon merits of the situation.

“Moving to point 3 (i.e. Minimum governance), I tend to agree largely. A good dose of libertine principle (along with the eradication of that socialist word from constitution) is needed here right now. Yet, I can not help but think that a good amount of state interference is needed for multiple groups. For example, when farmers sell their crop to the suppliers, it is only state interference that can ensure that they get fair prices (or government must ensure price fixing of the suppliers do not happen). I have heard a lot about farmer suicides in Andhra or Orissa. You know the tragic part? When a good crop season happens and farmers make good money, they spend almost all of it in largess (including deplorable stuff like nautanki shows). When next year, he gets ruined because of draft or such, he does not have enough money to run his family for the year. A state intervention is required to force farmers to create some sort of savings/retirement account if we want to stop the farmer suicide.”
Wrong. A state intervention is not going to help. If one makes a mistake, and suffers, others learn by his experience or parish. It is the state intervention which makes people disabled. State intervention is needed when some natural disasters like floods, earthquakes or tsunamis occur. Or, in educating the people to take a right path. No compulsory intervention will help in the long run.
“Moving to point 4, the lower taxation, I can not agree more.”
Fine
“And I am not moving to practicing the religions. This merits a separate thread. Let us limit the discussion to these points.”
Fine.
So, Sid, your major concern I suppose is about the changing norms in the society and equality amongst unequal.
I suppose I have answered your questions point by point. Now, let us discuss this further until we come to a logical end.
With warm regards
Akalpita

I realise that we have now (potentially) opened another can of worms here (figuratively, of course) in the sense that who defines (and decides on) what are these fundamental values, character, ethos etc? More food for thought I guess.

Comments welcome.