[Results] Prelims 2020 Over - Gearing for 2021

@Chanakya Kautilya sahab aapke vicharon ka postmodern analysis na ho jae yahan, Bach ke!

Caesar,

@redemption It's not enough to throw around buzzwords like 'intellectual dishonesty'. I've clearly explained what Hayek has said and not what your author has interpreted(although even that is quite different from what you've been saying). Also, you very emphatically said in an earlier comment that Hayek believed non white lives matter less, which is what piqued my interest. You have now moved on to forgetting inequality, and elite, etc. Please read the Hayek Rawls relation in some more detail.

@redemption There you go again, you won't get it will you that trying to paint someone opposing your contention in an immoral light by imagining what they may or may not do and then proceeding to smuggle in a real point won't wash here. Did I say caste inequalities don't need to be checked at all? Let's assume that is what Hayek said for the sake of argument. How does it follow that he said what you earlier claimed he did. What you claimed was a fact, that turned out to be well, a fake fact. Now you're logically extending the domain into the implications of that fact by delving into EWS caste upsc etc. I won't take the bait sir. Read the original, then come back with some better understanding bereft of red herrings and name calling.

@Handshake Implicit inequalities are accidental and must be accepted. It will lead to a better elite

@Handshake lol, thank you. Go and read the second stanza again. Its referenced. I can't help blind people

Hayeks liberalism

@redemption You may refrain from posting again, I read it the first time. You seem to be claiming that (as per the author) Hayek suggested it won't be practical in many cases to undo by special preferential laws that what has been done over centuries through unjust means, he implicitly means black lives don't matter. Or that they matter less than white ones. But that's not logical. He's arguing against the universal applicability of special treatment not making a moral claim against the black race. By your token he's against women, lgbt, even the general poor and the wretched, the dolphin in the Atlantic etc.

For all I know he may be a racist, but I'd like to see a good logical argument made for that loose claim flung in one small corner of the internet. Since you're also into judging an argument by its presenter, what is it the book that you're reading?

@Handshake the next one is from the horses mouth itself. As you have read hayek, you must know which book it is from

Also if you agree with it, I don't think we can have a reconciliation of viewpoints coz they are polar opposites. As per the same viewpoint I don't think we should either be salty that our ministers are getting treated in medanta while us plebs are looking for beds, coz their lives hold more value for the society.

@Handshake he was always against special treatment of a class section etc, aka affirmative action, on the basis of inequalities by birth. You can read more on him. That's what the whole hayekian legal position is, you can find out for yourself. Even today when someone says you don't need reservations in an exam coz both you and the guy who's father is a rickshaw puller are being tested on the same basis, its the hayekian argument. I think you should read up more on the hayekian position.

Steve,

@redemption Hahahahah! That's sort of cute because you have your heart in the right place and argue with an infectious passion. Trust me, I'm no fan of the fellow you refer to here.

Coming back to Hayek, the argument he's making here is about the 'calculus of life'. Please go back to the first line of the paragraph you have truncated. He does begin by prefacing the warning that whether we like to face it or not we have to often think along these lines. This is what the world is. Then he gives the example of triage (Hardin) , a somewhat fancy term for the choice a doctor faces in a war about whom to treat first (as some may die while others survive). It is in this context that he has discussed the notion of 'evolution'. Surely, you agree we make these claculations all the time. Whom to rescue first at the time of a disaster? If you have just one kidney available to lend(for friends never return what is lent), but two friends on the deathbed waiting for it, you make a choice.

Please don't draw a straight line from this to He who must not be named. All the best!

@redemption I'm aware of this, and yes I do need to read much more, on everything really. The longer we live, the more we learn. But I was quite surprised by your earlier claim regarding the white lives thingy. Anyway, good day now, I must call it a day.

@Handshake I don't agree with his conclusions, though. I haven't received much criticism for my moral position except being called utopian, but I would say, we shouldn't go for judging which life is more important, coz its simply neither objective, nor its that simple. We should rather stress on maximum number of lives

Steve,