The cartel and its members..
I learnt a new word today - cartellian. A collective for the libertarian bunch in the Indian blogosphere.
I read this pearl of wisdom from a member of this cartel.
I quote
I think Tejal should set an example for the rest of us in ‘depreviledging’ systems by opening access to her arsehole. Everyone from Thakurs to Dalits to whites to blacks to barnyard animals to illegal Bangladeshi immigrants should be able to enter it at will. I see no reason why everyone should be a have-not when it comes to anal sex with Tejal, especially when she herself has the ability to make everyone a have.
Besides being extremely offensive to women and ridiculing one of the most egregious crimes (violence against women) that exist today, do I even need to say what is wrong with this argument? He is comparing the argument for opening up _public_ institutes to that of access to something very private and personal to a person.
Now we all have rights over our private property and who gets access to it. Which is probably the reason why the cartel is the most insistent on privatisation... To shut off the access to the "undeserving".
Libertarianism and private property rights and privatisation. see how easily they all fit together.
But I am simplifying things, arn't I? And I do not get it, do I?
PS. Incredibly, this post went into draft mode!
I think I accidentally pressed the "save as draft" button when editing this post..
, , ,
20 comments:
Yes you are. No you don't. If you had bothered to read the original comment you would have seen that Tejal was talking about private property (bars, clubs, et cetera.)
I like the categories under which this post is filed: "Cartellian, Libertarianism, Morons, Privitisation". That should be privatisation, by the way. :)
@aadisht: bars, clubs, etc? they arn't private property as a jacuzzi in your bathroom is.
@anirudh: thanks for the pointer. I stand corrected. happy?
Happy, happy. :)
Apurva, a jacuzzi in your bathroom and a club are both private property. The club has an owner. It's up to him (or her) who (s)he wants to let in.
so, you do not see the difference between your bathroom and a pub? They both might be privately owned but there is a fundamental difference between them.
Yes, the fundamental difference is that I own my bathroom and decide who goes into it, and the pub owner owns the pub and HE decides who goes in there.
ok, hint --
bathroom ===> private space
pubs/restaurant ===> public space
get it?
aadisht,
Ok...so you own your arsehole and decide who goes into it. it's your property. so why don't you sell your property before the commies gain control all over. i mean, transfer it to someone like madhat here...so that you don't have to worry about your property rights being violated..
While I might agree with Aadisht's politics in general, I cannot see how you are calling a pub a public place. Please explain.
I meant to say "while I might not agree".
@anirudh: recently (actually, I think it was some time ago), the delhi government banned smoking from restaurants in the NCR. Now, if you equate restaurants to your bathroom, does this logically imply that the government does not want you to smoke in your private space?
The problem with asinine people like Aadisht is that they simplify everything and construct analogies that are simply wrong! Not to mention saying things that are unarguably offensive and despicable.
I think you are confusing public usage with public ownership. Try to remember that the bar is open for public usage only because the private user allowed it to be so.
The Delhi government has banned smoking in bars. Correct. This is the same government which botched electricity reform, is currently screwing up water reform, has flown in the face of Supreme Court directives, and has generally been inefficient and corrupt in the manner of governments worldwide. What's more likely: that it's violating the right of barowners to set their rules, or that it knows best?
oh! so the owner of the pub is being generous in throwing open the place to the public, huh? how wonderful!
and when did I talk about whether the ban was right or wrong? try to understand what other people are saying before letting your mind wander and pick up irrelevant arguments.
Fool!
The Delhi government has banned smoking in bars. Correct. This is the same government which botched electricity reform, is currently screwing up water reform, has flown in the face of Supreme Court directives, and has generally been inefficient and corrupt in the manner of governments worldwide.
Red herring Aadisht Khanna sa'ab.
Madhat, Do you really think you can make cartellian see logic. They are cartellians because they lack logic. Don't fall into the trap of spelling and grammar corrections. This may be valid because the mistake was in the tags. But they usually resort to such measures when they have no counter logic.
A mall in Mumbai said only those with credit cards could enter it. A public outcry made them change the decision.
There are judgements all over the world on whether a pub or inn or such place can be private to the extent of having rules like... not allowing people wearing pink shirts. Such rules have been struck down.
A private place like home, and a private place like a pub, are two different things. Both are governed by different sets of laws enacted by the state. If Aadisht Khanna does not like these laws he can do whatever he wants to with his beleagured arsehole!!!
@krish: I do not intend to "teach" anyone; much less a member of the cartel. Which is why I did not elaborate on Tejal's comment, which did make sense to me in a way. But I humour them nonetheless.
They resort to a lot of different but well-defined methods actually whenever they cannot argue. I think chetan made a long comment listing all their strategies.
they sell their arseholes..when they don't have enough money to buy new red herrings!
@anon: you really have a bone to pick with these guys, dont you? well, I dont blame you...
Post a Comment