[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:            http://www.indiapolicy.org/debate/