Recently there has been a huge controversy on the remarks of former finance minister Yashwant Sinha that if US has arrested an Indian consulate on the pretext of violating Minimum Wage Law, India should reciprocate by arresting US diplomats for breaking Article 377. (Homosexuality Law)
To this many liberal commentators have severely criticized the move as they think that Minimum Wage Law is pro human rights while Article 377 is anti human rights law.
It surprises me that the liberal commentators are so ignorant that they are unable to see the obvious. Both the laws are anti-libertarian though they differ somewhat in degree. Does it require a rocket scientist to understand that they both are unsolicited intrusion of state in the private decision of two individuals. The only justification of Minimum Wage Law is that in its absence, one can misuse the other in the pretext of consent. Supreme Court also justifies the stupid 377 on the ground that historically it has only been used to prevent one from forcing on the other. Either liberals don't have eyes to see this or brains to comprehend what they see.
People who are shouting that the Indian counsulate has committed a huge crime don't realize that this kind of Visa fraud is rampantly prevelant. As despite Article 377, Indian police does not send two consenting homesexuals to jail, similarly despite Minimum Wage Law US authorities don't send the Goldmans Sachs and TCS of the world for breaking it regularly.
I believe many of the readers are software engineers who would have gone to US/UK on the pretext of training/knowledge transfer etc.
1) Isn't it true that almost all actually go to co-ordinate on the work which has been outsourced to India. This means they are working in US/UK as any of the domestic citizen.
2) Isn't it true that despite working in US/UK, people get per day as low as $40 + house ($80 without house) and separately get a paltry amount credited as your Indian salary in your Indian account.
3) Isn't it much less than the minimum wage law which US guarantees. So by the same logic all such Indian IT professionals should be jailed in US.
4) Isn't it true that despite this 'anti-human' treatment meted out to these professionals, they all long to go on this on site.
5) If the US company is better off in calling someone and an individual is better off in going there, who is the state to come in between.
So by the same logic, if the maid thought that she is better off going to US at a 'low' salary, and the Indian diplomat thought she is better off calling her. Why is this act being called anti human. Of course it is illegal as per the US laws. (as is homosexuality per the Indian laws).
Just to clarify I am not equating the two laws but comparing them. Personally speaking, I don't absolutely object to state intruding into the personal space but only when it is absolutely necessary. The problem is that the condition of 'absolutely necessary' is subjective which changes with societies, times and the order we are trying to establish. As a rule, state should do away with such duties and laws like these should be exception rather than the rule. Even if state feels necessary to interfere in such cases, criminalizing private mutual decisions by punishment upto 10 years should be condemned by everyone. (both Minimum Wage Law and Article 377)
Apart from the philosophical view point, economically too Minimum Wage Law has done a lot of damage to the world. Consider a scenario when a poor does not have money even to buy his/her bread. While a moderately rich person can employ him/her but can only pay an amount which is less than the minimum legal wage. This transaction would have made both the sides better off, increased the GDP and reduced unemployment but thanks to this stupid law none of the above would happen.
In fact one of the reason US economy is in such a sad state (low growth, high unemployment) is due to socialistic laws like these. In the pursuit of defining the end, when we compromise the means, we end up comprising the end itself. Hope liberals understand this!
The end is inherent in the means. - (1869 - 1948)
