[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Free Citizen piece: temporary closure

(Moderator's comments: The following mail from
Ash is in reply to one of Sanjeev's earlier
mails.  From here on till the week end only mails
pertaining to education will be send to the IP
list except those mails that call for immediate
attention. All the other mails will be posted on
Saturday morning (Israel time!). In the mean time
we also expect to see the topic for the next
debate. Please write to me at
 with comments/suggestions: Thanks-madhu)

> Major dissent: the 'right to exit.' My dissent is not with your
> content, but with your style. Make your language very simple. Very
> simple indeed. Then we can discuss again. Right now it was too
> complex. (AND)
> The right to exit is also implicit, making it explicit may not be
> necessary.

If you recall, Sanjeev, the original poser behind my elaborate construct
on who is "in" and who is "out" stemmed from a different question
altogether, which is "who is the fair society fair to?" I may have
stated it differently then, asking "should the society be fair to
non-members"? Answering that question necessitated some formulation of
the basis for membership. If we are going to leave out references to
membership within the society and outside it, then it leaves the
original question unanswered.

I will consider the language of what I wrote up and try to simplify. The
unfortunate truth is that precise but elaborate language (describing
laws and mores)  may well be necessary in any civil society, which is
why judges agonize over the details.

For the moment, we should at least have link to the earlier version,
that will give others the opportunity to examine how "needed" it is in
the manifesto.


This is a posting to India_Policy Discussion list:  debate@indiapolicy.org
Rules, Procedures, Archives:            ../debate/