Libertarian Discussion Thread

[Orostan]

1. I've given you a number of examples for mutinies against the British. I've also proved that violent groups did exist in India before Ghandi. You haven't yet proved that the British government did not care about Indian soldiers revolting.
2. I did provide it. I showed you military mutinies and anti-british groups.

Burden of proof is on the AFFIRMATIVE, Orostan. I don't have to prove an action didn't really cause something, you have to prove an action really did cause something.

This is debate 101 stuff man.

I have already showed you proof of mutinies as late as the 1940s.

1. If Britain could maintain control over India and Pakistan with force, they would have. 2. There would be no independent India without the British Empire being weaker after WWII, and 3. Gahandi only redirected formerly violent protest to peaceful protest.

1. We agree. There's a difference between not enough force to stop an insurrection, and not enough force to stop the wave of non-violent non-compliance that Gandhi was famous for.
2. We agree. Too weak to force compliance=/=too weak to stop insurrection
3. Let's use Occam's razor here. Which is more likely?

• Violence committed by a group in the 20's freaked Britain out in the 40's to the point of getting out of India
• Those same groups joined a widespread non-violent non-compliance group that weakened Britain's international support and drained their resources coupled with Britain's domestic issues got Britain out of India.

I say we go with the second one.

The Bombay Mutiny happened in the 1940s. Threat of revolt was very real.

1. We agree. There's a difference between not enough force to stop an insurrection, and not enough force to stop the wave of non-violent non-compliance that Gandhi was famous for.
2. We agree. Too weak to force compliance=/=too weak to stop insurrection
3. Let's use Occam's razor here. Which is more likely?

• Violence committed by a group in the 20's freaked Britain out in the 40's to the point of getting out of India
• Those same groups joined a widespread non-violent non-compliance group that weakened Britain's international support and drained their resources coupled with Britain's domestic issues got Britain out of India.

I say we go with the second one.

The Indian National Army was active in the 40's. It inspired 1946 rebellions like the Bombay Mutiny, and the Red Fort trails of it's members became a rallying symbol for Indian Independence. The Vice-Roy described 1946 India as 'The edge of a volcano'.

Fear of another armed uprising was certainly a major factor in Indian Independence.

Thank you.

[VoVoDoCo]

Gandhi was assassinated AFTER Britain granted independence to India, by a Hindu nationalist upset over the partitioning that created Pakistan atop Hinduism's holiest sites. There were no notable violent movements against British rule in India after 1920, save for a few attacks during the 1930s that killed no one, carried out by popularly insignificant socialist factions. Vovo is right, Gandhi's non-violence and Nehru's secular communalism approaches worked.

Because the British had used Muslim troops to augment their occupation of India for nearly 200 years, there was a lot of religious hatred between Muslim and Hindu that still lasts today. Partitioning out Pakistan was unpopular, but necessary, and probably saved millions of Muslim lives. That's all Gandhi, love him or hate him.

Wherever you are getting the idea that Britain feared a violent uprising against them thus granted independence needs to be returned to the fiction shelves of the library. You are obviously way out of your depth here. Marx may have given you a new way to look at history, but there's not a damned thing wrong with looking at history the correct way. Try that.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_National_Army

Boses Indian National Army was a serious rebellion. It’s very recent memory certainly factored into decisions about independence

First of all, thank you for actually giving a source.

Second of all, I disagree about its affect on Indian independence. For several key reasons:

• Historians note that Britain was already beginning to lean towards liberation as a result of the non-violent movement, so this conflict was unnecessary
• We're debating whether or not violence got Britain of India's back. Let's say that the attack immediately worked, the army wasn't disbanded, and it instilled its command structure in the public. At its head, would be a man who admired the work of Hitler and Mussolini, which wouldn't so much be called liberation, so much as changing masters.
• Your source notes that the army was more dangerous to Britain dead than alive and that it served as a rallying point for those in India, a nationalist concept for them all to fight under. It wasn't necessarily fear of violence that freed India, but that the violence committed by that group (which failed to accomplish anything directly) gave India something to unite behind. A image of a India who has had enough. Gandhi took the wheel from there.

[Irona]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_National_Army

Boses Indian National Army was a serious rebellion. It’s very recent memory certainly factored into decisions about independence

First of all, thank you for actually giving a source.

Second of all, I disagree about its affect on Indian independence. For several key reasons:

• Historians note that Britain was already beginning to lean towards liberation as a result of the non-violent movement, so this conflict was unnecessary
• We're debating whether or not violence got Britain of India's back. Let's say that the attack immediately worked, the army wasn't disbanded, and it instilled its command structure in the public. At its head, would be a man who admired the work of Hitler and Mussolini, which wouldn't so much be called liberation, so much as changing masters.
• Your source notes that the army was more dangerous to Britain dead than alive and that it served as a rallying point for those in India, a nationalist concept for them all to fight under. It wasn't necessarily fear of violence that freed India, but that the violence committed by that group (which failed to accomplish anything directly) gave India something to unite behind. A image of a India who has had enough. Gandhi took the wheel from there.

I’m not saying the INA was good, or more effective than Gandhi. However the British government was willing to listen to Gandhi and the peaceful movement because of the violent one. Part of the reason they left India so quickly was because they feared violent revolution if they didn’t.

I don’t think violent resistance forced the British from India, but denying its importance as a major factor among others is wrong.

[VoVoDoCo]

First of all, thank you for actually giving a source.

Second of all, I disagree about its affect on Indian independence. For several key reasons:

• Historians note that Britain was already beginning to lean towards liberation as a result of the non-violent movement, so this conflict was unnecessary
• We're debating whether or not violence got Britain of India's back. Let's say that the attack immediately worked, the army wasn't disbanded, and it instilled its command structure in the public. At its head, would be a man who admired the work of Hitler and Mussolini, which wouldn't so much be called liberation, so much as changing masters.
• Your source notes that the army was more dangerous to Britain dead than alive and that it served as a rallying point for those in India, a nationalist concept for them all to fight under. It wasn't necessarily fear of violence that freed India, but that the violence committed by that group (which failed to accomplish anything directly) gave India something to unite behind. A image of a India who has had enough. Gandhi took the wheel from there.

I’m not saying the INA was good, or more effective than Gandhi. However the British government was willing to listen to Gandhi and the peaceful movement because of the violent one. Part of the reason they left India so quickly was because they feared violent revolution if they didn’t.

I don’t think violent resistance forced the British from India, but denying its importance as a major factor among others is wrong.

I've been looking for the stats on how many INA members were killed and how many they killed. Do you have a number by any chance?

[Irona]

I’m not saying the INA was good, or more effective than Gandhi. However the British government was willing to listen to Gandhi and the peaceful movement because of the violent one. Part of the reason they left India so quickly was because they feared violent revolution if they didn’t.

I don’t think violent resistance forced the British from India, but denying its importance as a major factor among others is wrong.

I've been looking for the stats on how many INA members were killed and how many they killed. Do you have a number by any chance?

I can't find any detailed statistics, but as far as I understand the INA weren't militarily very influential. British reports indicate that they weren't effective fighters (though bias should be assumed), and there are several definite cases of large scale desertions. in large part their contribution was as a symbol of what could happen if the British didn't leave India. They definitely couldn't have beaten the British Army in India on their own.

p411-455 of This book outlines the importance of violence and the INA to Indian Independence.

[The Liberated Territories]

Reminder that libertarian classical liberalism is the true, most American ideology, as exemplified in Cowboy Culture and American industrialism and eutrepeneurism from the Gilden Age to the 1920s and then again reviving in the 1980s.

Fascists and Socialists can go back to Yurip where their ideas are more popular. :^)

[Orostan]

Reminder that libertarian classical liberalism is the true, most American ideology, as exemplified in Cowboy Culture and American industrialism and eutrepeneurism from the Gilden Age to the 1920s and then again reviving in the 1980s.

Fascists and Socialists can go back to Yurip where their ideas are more popular. :^)

>muh entrepreneurs
Why is the labor of someone who owns a company and works worth more than the labor of someone else who does not own a company and works? Why does starting a business entitle someone to the product of another person's labor?

Also,

>muh 1980s

I'd hardly call crushing unions and scamming the population a good thing.

[The Liberated Territories]

>muh entrepreneurs
Why is the labor of someone who owns a company and works worth more than the labor of someone else who does not own a company and works? Why does starting a business entitle someone to the product of another person's labor?

It doesn't unless that business employs people in it, then it is just a mutual contract.

Also,

>muh 1980s

I'd hardly call crushing unions and scamming the population a good thing.

Union busting...like the police, transportation and construction unions? The most parasitic unions are the ones closest to the government.

"Scamming the population" lol rly you sound like some sort of conspiracy nutter now. Back to the boat with you.

[Orostan]

>muh entrepreneurs
Why is the labor of someone who owns a company and works worth more than the labor of someone else who does not own a company and works? Why does starting a business entitle someone to the product of another person's labor?

It doesn't unless that business employs people in it, then it is just a mutual contract.

Also,

>muh 1980s

I'd hardly call crushing unions and scamming the population a good thing.

Union busting...like the police, transportation and construction unions? The most parasitic unions are the ones closest to the government.

"Scamming the population" lol rly you sound like some sort of conspiracy nutter now. Back to the boat with you.

1. So it is okay to steal what someone else creates if they agree to it to avoid starving to death? That is no real choice. It is the same as being mugged at gunpoint. You could choose not to hand over your wallet, but you'd get shot and the criminal would take your wallet anyway.

2, "Parasitic"

To who? Who are they paristising? It is the capitalist that lives off of what the worker generates. They are the parasites. Unions are a great tool for workers to take more of what they generate, and to prevent excessive exploitation. The Teachers strike in West Virginia is an example of that.

And Reagan did scam the population. Trickle down economics is a pile of shit, and everyone knows it.

[The Liberated Territories]

1. So it is okay to steal what someone else creates if they agree to it to avoid starving to death? That is no real choice. It is the same as being mugged at gunpoint. You could choose not to hand over your wallet, but you'd get shot and the criminal would take your wallet anyway.

What the hell are you talking about? Nobody is stealing anything, it's a VOLUNTARY AGREEMENT. They don't have to accept, even if their conditions are crap poor because I'd be the one giving them a way out of their current life if anything. Had anyone been able to just take from the capitalist what they thought belonged to them, there would be no capitalist, and therefore no businesses to employ people, and we'd all be unemployed and perhaps starving since there would be no way for a government agency to feed all the people. Reality is crap, socialist reality is crappier.

2, "Parasitic"

To who? Who are they paristising? It is the capitalist that lives off of what the worker generates. They are the parasites. Unions are a great tool for workers to take more of what they generate, and to prevent excessive exploitation. The Teachers strike in West Virginia is an example of that.

At the end of the day, an owner of a small business gets very little money. Before taking over his business, my father worked in the corporate world as a sales rep and made much more money then then he does now. All the profit he makes now goes into things such as giving all the employees wages, making sure the building is powered and running, paying taxes, etc. and all the rest of the profit is put back into improving the business. The money he can take for himself is very paltry and if he does take more, then the business takes less and is less competitive as a result.

The Teachers are mostly public employees, striking because they don't get more of the taxpayers that is money being wasted on the flawed system that is US education.

Trickle down economics is a pile of shit, and everyone knows it.

So why did a whole bunch of corporations (e.g. Wal-Mart) give their workers up to thousand dollar bonus after Trump cut the corporate tax rate? Maybe corporations have tight profit margins and are barely able to sustain themselves and taxation only worsens that condition? Nah, the capitalist is exploiting them of course.

[Orostan]

1. So it is okay to steal what someone else creates if they agree to it to avoid starving to death? That is no real choice. It is the same as being mugged at gunpoint. You could choose not to hand over your wallet, but you'd get shot and the criminal would take your wallet anyway.

What the hell are you talking about? Nobody is stealing anything, it's a VOLUNTARY AGREEMENT. They don't have to accept, even if their conditions are crap poor because I'd be the one giving them a way out of their current life if anything. Had anyone been able to just take from the capitalist what they thought belonged to them, there would be no capitalist, and therefore no businesses to employ people, and we'd all be unemployed and perhaps starving since there would be no way for a government agency to feed all the people. Reality is crap, socialist reality is crappier.

2, "Parasitic"

To who? Who are they paristising? It is the capitalist that lives off of what the worker generates. They are the parasites. Unions are a great tool for workers to take more of what they generate, and to prevent excessive exploitation. The Teachers strike in West Virginia is an example of that.

At the end of the day, an owner of a small business gets very little money. Before taking over his business, my father worked in the corporate world as a sales rep and made much more money then then he does now. All the profit he makes now goes into things such as giving all the employees wages, making sure the building is powered and running, paying taxes, etc. and all the rest of the profit is put back into improving the business. The money he can take for himself is very paltry and if he does take more, then the business takes less and is less competitive as a result.

The Teachers are mostly public employees, striking because they don't get more of the taxpayers that is money being wasted on the flawed system that is US education.

Trickle down economics is a pile of shit, and everyone knows it.

So why did a whole bunch of corporations (e.g. Wal-Mart) give their workers up to thousand dollar bonus after Trump cut the corporate tax rate? Maybe corporations have tight profit margins and are barely able to sustain themselves and taxation only worsens that condition? Nah, the capitalist is exploiting them of course.

1. Wage slavery or starvation is far from a voluntary choice. It's not like I can just not participate in Capitalism.
2. The small business owners labor is legitimate. The wealth they accumulate off of others is not.

Teachers were striking because they are among the lowest paid in the country, and their insurance system is absolutely broken. If wanting to be paid a living wage for doing one of the most important jobs in the world is bad, nothing is good.

3. AT&T did it as part of a union deal, I think a number of other companies also had already scheduled raises before the tax cut. Walmart gave out one time bonuses, and those thousand dollar ones didn't go to the average worker. Walmart is still paying poverty level wages, so giving out what amounts to being like a penny doesn't fix that. Most of the money from the cut was used for stock but backs.

Corporate profits are soaring. The rate of profit, not so much. Don't use the profit excuse, it's proved wrong by corporate profits being extremely high even before the tax cut.

[Nulla Bellum]

Gandhi was assassinated AFTER Britain granted independence to India, by a Hindu nationalist upset over the partitioning that created Pakistan atop Hinduism's holiest sites. There were no notable violent movements against British rule in India after 1920, save for a few attacks during the 1930s that killed no one, carried out by popularly insignificant socialist factions. Vovo is right, Gandhi's non-violence and Nehru's secular communalism approaches worked.

Because the British had used Muslim troops to augment their occupation of India for nearly 200 years, there was a lot of religious hatred between Muslim and Hindu that still lasts today. Partitioning out Pakistan was unpopular, but necessary, and probably saved millions of Muslim lives. That's all Gandhi, love him or hate him.

Wherever you are getting the idea that Britain feared a violent uprising against them thus granted independence needs to be returned to the fiction shelves of the library. You are obviously way out of your depth here. Marx may have given you a new way to look at history, but there's not a damned thing wrong with looking at history the correct way. Try that.

If Britain could maintain control over India and Pakistan with force, they would have. There would be no independent India without the British Empire being weaker after WWII, and Gahandi only redirected formerly violent protest to peaceful protest. That is the center of my argument.

There was little anti-British violence in India after 1920, which is 20 years BEFORE Britain entered WW2. We're taking 27 years of a violent revolution in India against the British never happening. You're talking about a dozen or so Indians out of MILLIONS being involved in a failed bombing plot 5 years before WW2.

Come on, dude. Read some history. There was NEVER a violent anti-British movement of any size, potency, or significance, even BEFORE Gandhi came home from South Africa. And certainly not after. The British left India because they were broke and could save face.

Fear of a united India rising against them never even crossed their minds. Shit, 60 years later India still hasn't united behind any particular strain of nationalism, much less violent nationalism.

[Orostan]

If Britain could maintain control over India and Pakistan with force, they would have. There would be no independent India without the British Empire being weaker after WWII, and Gahandi only redirected formerly violent protest to peaceful protest. That is the center of my argument.

There was little anti-British violence in India after 1920, which is 20 years BEFORE Britain entered WW2. We're taking 27 years of a violent revolution in India against the British never happening. You're talking about a dozen or so Indians out of MILLIONS being involved in a failed bombing plot 5 years before WW2.

Come on, dude. Read some history. There was NEVER a violent anti-British movement of any size, potency, or significance, even BEFORE Gandhi came home from South Africa. And certainly not after. The British left India because they were broke and could save face.

Fear of a united India rising against them never even crossed their minds. Shit, 60 years later India still hasn't united behind any particular strain of nationalism, much less violent nationalism.

No, i'm talking about military mutinys not bombings. If a big enough mutiny came along Britian would not be able to put it down. You are ignoring my point. And your statement that there was never a violent anti british movement that was significant is more than a little wrong.

[Elwher]

1. Wage slavery or starvation is far from a voluntary choice. It's not like I can just not participate in Capitalism.

And in a Socialist state would I have the right to decide not to work and still be fed? I doubt it.

As to participation, look at the Roycrofters or the Onida Community for examples of people deciding not to participate in Capitalism.

[Salus Maior]

1. Wage slavery or starvation is far from a voluntary choice. It's not like I can just not participate in Capitalism.

And in a Socialist state would I have the right to decide not to work and still be fed? I doubt it.

...Well, you shouldn't be allowed to do that regardless.

[Elwher]

And in a Socialist state would I have the right to decide not to work and still be fed? I doubt it.

...Well, you shouldn't be allowed to do that regardless.

I agree, so the wage slave/starvation issue is a non-starter.

[Orostan]

1. Wage slavery or starvation is far from a voluntary choice. It's not like I can just not participate in Capitalism.

And in a Socialist state would I have the right to decide not to work and still be fed? I doubt it.

As to participation, look at the Roycrofters or the Onida Community for examples of people deciding not to participate in Capitalism.

Yes. You would. You would not live so well, but you could choose not to work.

However when work can be made pleasant, why wouldn't you work?

And those communities - they had to start from somewhere. They've got to pay for stuff they can't make themselves. They've got to participate in capitalism. The Royxrofter community sold furniture. The Onida Commune sold silverware. Both had to compete and act in Capitalist markets, so their structure was most similar to an espefially strange cooperative.

And in a Socialist state would I have the right to decide not to work and still be fed? I doubt it.

...Well, you shouldn't be allowed to do that regardless.

If we can provide for those that don't want to work without harming ourselves, why shouldn't we?

[Elwher]

As to participation, look at the Roycrofters or the Onida Community for examples of people deciding not to participate in Capitalism.

And those communities - they had to start from somewhere. They've got to pay for stuff they can't make themselves. They've got to participate in capitalism. The Royxrofter community sold furniture. The Onida Commune sold silverware. Both had to compete and act in Capitalist markets, so their structure was most similar to an espefially strange cooperative.

The communities as a whole did participate to a limited degree in Capitalism, I agree. But the individual members did not do so in any meaningful way, and I took your statement, since it used a personal pronoun and not a collective one, to apply to the individual members.

[Orostan]

And those communities - they had to start from somewhere. They've got to pay for stuff they can't make themselves. They've got to participate in capitalism. The Royxrofter community sold furniture. The Onida Commune sold silverware. Both had to compete and act in Capitalist markets, so their structure was most similar to an espefially strange cooperative.

The communities as a whole did participate to a limited degree in Capitalism, I agree. But the individual members did not do so in any meaningful way, and I took your statement, since it used a personal pronoun and not a collective one, to apply to the individual members.

The problem I have with those communities is that they had to compete in a Capitalist market, as a prequisite for participating in one. That means they'd have to operate on the same laws as a Capitalist firm.

[Taihei Tengoku]

singapore is actually socialist because it had five year plans

[Orostan]

singapore is actually socialist because it had five year plans

I never claimed that Singapore was socialist, only that you shouldn't use it as an example of "muh free markets".

[Taihei Tengoku]

hmm sounds like someone didnt read the article

[Orostan]

hmm sounds like someone didnt read the article

The author says that Singapore uses its state owned companies like capitalist firms, which compete on a market.

My argument about Singapore was that it used a system of state guidance to help itself develop, and that current state involvement in the economy serves as a "guide" for Singapore's Capitalist system.

[Taihei Tengoku]

hmm sounds like someone didnt read the article

[Orostan]

hmm sounds like someone didnt read the article

Are you listening to my argument, or not? I responded to the claim the article was making.