The “live like an animal, or die like one” principle

Also known as “fascism is the perfect solution for terrorism.”

That’s the Times of India‘s “Thought for Today”, before it goes on to print this editorial–

Big Brother could really be watching. The Information Technology (Amendment) Bill, 2006 that was passed by Parliament earlier this month allows the government to intercept messages from mobile phones, computers and other communication devices to investigate any offence. This means that e-mails, text messages and the contents of one’s computer are all fair game as far as the government is concerned. Lack of independent oversight makes these powers liable to misuse.

Introduced after the terrorist attacks in Mumbai, the government sees this legislation as instrumental in fighting terrorism. Given that terrorists have used the ease and relative anonymity of the internet to plan and execute attacks, the government’s push to monitor online activity is justified. It is acceptable, even inevitable, that citizens will have to sacrifice some civil liberties to aid the fight against terrorism. However, this legislation goes beyond merely infringing the right to privacy of an ordinary citizen.

[…]

Following the Mumbai attacks, we are aware that terrorism presents a new kind of enemy, one that doesn’t play by the normal rules of warfare. We understand that the government needs strong legislation to fight terror effectively, even at the cost of some of our freedoms. But the provisions of this Act give the state absolute power over information transmitted through computer systems. This could be an invitation to the government to spy on people based on religion or political affiliation. It is imperative, therefore, that an independent authority be set up to review complaints of unauthorised interceptions. This country has to do some careful thinking about the right balance between national security and civil liberties.

For his sci-fi shorts collection “I, Robot”, Isaac Asimov invented the three laws of robotics–

1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

The very same laws apply to any system devised to protect men and their freedom, and the government is one such system. The only reason that a government exists is to protect individual rights. And nothing that a government does in order to protect such rights should violate these very rights. This is such an elementary principle that even kids will understand it. However, here we have the absolutely absurd situation where a government arms itself with unlimited powers to violate the rights of its citizens in order to “protect” them. And the Cohens and Times’ of the world are so far away from even beginning to understand the contradictions involved that that I consider their opinions on matters such as these to be an insult even to my dustbin. Unfortunately though, there are people out there who would wholesomely agree with such crackpots – giving up freedom to protect freedom. Sounds good.

“Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think that you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong,” Rand said. However, you can only check your premises if you have some. Ideologically bankrupt men and papers flow with the current. To stand up against popular opinion, especially argue against it, one requires balls of steel and an incredibly coherent ideology. These guys don’t have it. That’s why their solution for terrorism – Islamic terrorism or Islamo-fascist terrorism – is plain vanilla fascism.

I talked about this in brief a couple of days back, and Vipin has expanded on it.