Definitions of Socialism

These are some of the quotes I came across on Twitter. I must say I am not completely in disagreement with them.

Socialism (n): The fusion of economic illiteracy with total ignorance of human nature.
— Murray Rothbard (@LibertarianView) June 29, 2014

#SOCIALISM (n): The haunting fear that someone, somewhere may be happier than you!
— Murray Rothbard (@LibertarianView) October 13, 2013

#SOCIALISM (n): The philosophy of dividing the shortages equally among the poor
— Murray Rothbard (@LibertarianView) June 1, 2014

#SOCIALISM (n): The theory that everyone who fails is a saint and everyone who succeeds is a sinner
— Murray Rothbard (@LibertarianView) January 5, 2014

#SOCIALISM (n): A race in which everyone finishes first, but nobody gets a prize
— Murray Rothbard (@LibertarianView) December 1, 2013

#SOCIALISM (n): The political view that it is unjust that others do better in life than you
— Murray Rothbard (@LibertarianView) November 17, 2013

#SOCIALISM (n): The belief that working for a living is exploitation by employers, but living off the taxes paid by employers is not!
— Murray Rothbard (@LibertarianView) October 27, 2013

Socialism: A cult where success & wealth are declared evil and the followers own failures & poverty are declared noble.
— Murray Rothbard (@LibertarianView) October 4, 2012

Socialist (n): One who cloaks his personal envy at the success of others in a charade of noble concern for others.
— Murray Rothbard (@LibertarianView) June 29, 2014

Hostage negotiations: the place between the well and the cliff

It is so very commonly seen in the movies that one may be forgiven to believe that taking someone hostage actually increases one's chances of getting away.

Consider a scenario where one has hijacked a plane and has taken all the passengers hostage. The terrorist wants to negotiate the release of the hostages, which basically in simple language means that he wants the Government to accede to all his demands.

The implicit assumption the terrorist carries is that the Government values the lives of the hostage and is willing to go to any lengths to ensure that they are not harmed. This is partly true, but this is also the most disadvantaged position the terrorist can find himself in.

While the assumption that the terrorist will not be harmed as long as the hostages are alive is valid, the very same argument can be turned around on its head to see things from the Government's perspective.

The terrorist has basically no escape, and if he wants to live, the only choice he has is to keep the hostages alive, whether or not his demands are met by the Government.

So, if a Government chooses to not negotiate with the terrorist, the terrorist finds himself cornered. The terrorist cannot escape death in this case, whether or not his demands are met, and whether or not the hostages live. If the terrorist values his life even a bit, he would realize that this is a game for him to lose, no matter what.

In fact, in general, if a Government has a stated policy of not negotiating with any terrorist ever, then it really must discourage terrorists to ever venture towards such actions, because invariably, all roads will then lead only to one inevitability - the death of the terrorists.

I brought up the above example of hijacking because this is perhaps the most recent and the most widely spoken hostage incident to have to happened in the context of India. Yes, I am alluding to the hijacking of an Air India airplane that was taken subsequently taken to Kandahar in Afghanistan. The situation was perhaps different because the hostages were held up in a different country and our security forces did not have any chance to take down the terrorists.

Even then, had we had a stated policy of non-negotiation, the terrorists would have probably not embarked on such a venture in the first place.