Property rights debate

• who should be in charge of the following?: “Net potential loss of livelihood resources should be accessed thoroughly and seriously before
  industrial and development projects are sanctioned.”
• I am as pro decentralisation as the next guy. But “Eminent domain of the State not withstanding, control and utilisation authority should vest with the panchyats.” could mean abuse of ‘eminent domain’ by the panchayat head instead of the state and central government. Check out Institute of Justice
  for examples of local abuse by local heads. Unless private property rights is reinstated as a fundamental right, with the accompanying protections, this will just mean devolution of power to abuse.
• If the following : “Any land used for food production provides economic security and the government system should guarantee timely necessary inputs” was possible then much of the farmer suicide may not have happened. Obviously the system is riddled with inefficiency and corruption. Get the government out of the input business. Let the food producer decide inputs. Help him with direct subsidies if necessary.

Of course each of those demands can be questioned and analysed. But Janadesh hopefully will trigger a national debate on property rights. Any debate and rethinking is welcome.

Related posts:

1. Ironies on the road to property rights
2. Let a hundred Hong Kong bloom
3. Why not just right not to be poor
4. The vanishing common sense
5. What is the difference?