Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [LeftLibertarian2] Re: Child Soldiers - Africa - Guerilla Warfare - Kenya - M...

Expand Messages
  • Nathan Shepperd
    ... You still seem to be ignoring the element of coercion. Did they have to have it forced on them? Talking of the benefits is one thing, but it is after the
    Message 1 of 19 , May 1 12:21 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      On 01/05/07, tony_hollick <StarGateAcademy@...> wrote:
      >
      > Colonialism brought immense advantages to African peoples, who
      > seemed to have missed out in their isolation. Roads, vehicles,
      > railways, bridges, harbours, electricity, clean water, drainage,
      > improved agriculture, bicycles, kerosene lamps, markets, sewing
      > needles, axes, farm implements, books, a written language, maps,
      > mathematics, libraries, dams, irrigation, the list is endless.
      >
      > If these advantages were offered to you, would you say "Fuck
      > you!" or "Thank you"?
      >
      > Regards,
      >
      > Tony
      >

      You still seem to be ignoring the element of coercion. Did they have
      to have it forced on them? Talking of the benefits is one thing, but
      it is after the fact - it still doesn't make it right, necessary or
      inevitable. Real free trade could have brought the same thing about
      without imperial violence. That's the real question - you can keep
      going on about the benefits until the cows come home, but you haven't
      legitimised the violence or subjugation involved.
    • David Houser
      Whether I d say fuck you or thank you is very much dependent on how the offer is presented. If it s rammed down my throat while a gun s pointed at me, it s
      Message 2 of 19 , May 1 1:05 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        Whether I'd say "fuck you" or "thank you" is very much dependent on
        how the offer is presented. If it's rammed down my throat while a
        gun's pointed at me, it's definitely going to be the former, at least
        under my breath. If it's a genuine *offer*, rather than an imposition,
        then I may say "thank you" or "no thank you". But without the option
        of saying "no thank you" or even "fuck you", it's aggression, pure and
        simple, no matter how much better off you believe I'll be. And the
        descendants of slaves living in the US are likely to be "better off"
        than their counterparts in Africa, but that doesn't mean anybody ought
        to be singing the praises of the advantages of slavery.


        --- In LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com, "tony_hollick"
        <StarGateAcademy@...> wrote:
        >
        >
        > Roger:
        >
        > I am saying it would be probable that there would be many fewer.
        >
        > It all depends on the skill of the colonial governors, their
        > "hearts and minds" relationships with the people within their
        > jurisdiction, and the intensity of insurgents seeking expropriation,
        > power, real estate, all the rest of the fell motives.
        >
        > Colonialism brought immense advantages to African peoples, who
        > seemed to have missed out in their isolation. Roads, vehicles,
        > railways, bridges, harbours, electricity, clean water, drainage,
        > improved agriculture, bicycles, kerosene lamps, markets, sewing
        > needles, axes, farm implements, books, a written language, maps,
        > mathematics, libraries, dams, irrigation, the list is endless.
        >
        > If these advantages were offered to you, would you say "Fuck
        > you!" or "Thank you"?
        >
        > Regards,
        >
        > Tony
        >
        >
        >
        > --- In LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com, "thorenstd124"
        > <thorenstd124@> wrote:
        > >
        > > So Tony,are you saying if Africa was still under colonial rule,that
        > > there would be no child soldiers ?
        > >
        > >
        > > Roger
        > >
        > > --- In LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com, "tony_hollick"
        > > <StarGateAcademy@> wrote:
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > MikeH:
        > > >
        > > > We might also keep in mind the present Iranian President,
        who made
        > > > his name sending upwards of a million children into the Iraqi
        > > > minefields, and into the maw of the Iraqi artillery and
        machine-guns.
        > > >
        > > > Even the battle-hardened Iraqi troops were sickened by the
        > > slaughter.
        > > >
        > > > Regards,
        > > >
        > > > Tony
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > --- In LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com, MikeHolmesTX@ wrote:
        > > > >
        > > > > Yes, this is deplorable but hardly unprecedented.
        > > > >
        > > > > An entire children's Crusade was launched in the middle ages by a
        > > > crazy monk
        > > > > which lured many children on that task, nearly all of whom were
        > > > eventually
        > > > > sold as slaves.
        > > > >
        > > > > Alexander the Great began his world conquest at age 17 leading an
        > > army.
        > > > >
        > > > > Up until recently and even today in many places (such as the poor
        > > > African
        > > > > places mentioned in the article) the distinction between childhood
        > > > and adulthood
        > > > > was and is fairly blurry with no prolonged adolescence. In farming
        > > and
        > > > > subsistence societies children were expected to pull their
        weight as
        > > > soon as they
        > > > > could.
        > > > >
        > > > > In the American Civil War drummers and messengers sometimes joined
        > > > at age 12
        > > > > or so, and even in WWI and WWII some lied to get in at 14-15
        (and as
        > > > aging
        > > > > veterans are lauded for this). Of course in Russia and Germany
        some
        > > > youngsters
        > > > > were dragooned to fight, most notoriously in Germany at the end.
        > > > >
        > > > > You can bet if the State thought it was needed, even in modern
        > > > societies such
        > > > > young fighters would be used and the propaganda would be lionizing
        > > > them.
        > > > >
        > > > > The difference now in Africa is that nearly all these child
        soldiers
        > > > are
        > > > > uneducated (like peasants of old) and often orphaned (ditto) but
        > > > given modern
        > > > > small arms and of course drugged or given alcohol. Not having much
        > > > choice they
        > > > > fight or die.
        > > > >
        > > > > Of course military leaders have long known that young men have
        more
        > > > > aggression, bravado and sense of invincibility than older men.
        > > > Historically the limit
        > > > > was whether they were more trouble than they were worth (e.g.,
        could
        > > > carry
        > > > > heavy weapons and endure hardship).
        > > > >
        > > > > Young women are treated even worse, used as slave labor and sex
        > > slaves.
        > > > >
        > > > > Yes, it is a tough world in some places. Always has been.
        > > > >
        > > > > Let us hope that can change.
        > > > >
        > > > > MH </HTML>
        > > > >
        > > >
        > >
        >
      • Rad Geek
        ... Also concentration camps, mass expropriation of land for plantation agriculture, passbooks, apartheid. Oh, yes, and don t forget the immense advantages of
        Message 3 of 19 , May 1 3:00 PM
        • 0 Attachment
          tony_hollick wrote:

          > Colonialism brought immense advantages to African peoples, who
          > seemed to have missed out in their isolation. Roads, vehicles,
          > railways, bridges, harbours, electricity, clean water, drainage,
          > improved agriculture, bicycles, kerosene lamps, markets, sewing
          > needles, axes, farm implements, books, a written language, maps,
          > mathematics, libraries, dams, irrigation, the list is endless.

          Also concentration camps, mass expropriation of land for plantation
          agriculture, passbooks, apartheid. Oh, yes, and don't forget the immense
          advantages of baskets of severed hands.

          Could you please at least *try* to make some minimal effort to
          distinguish between the genuine boons of international free trade and
          cultural exchange, and the massive coercion--often cashed out in
          outright terror and atrocity--of global political control? There is
          absolutely no reason whatever to pretend, least of all among
          libertarians, that the former is dependent on the latter.

          -C
        • Mike Park
          If these advantages were offered to you, would you say Fuck you! or Thank you ? Definitely a fuck you since these advantages were not offered but
          Message 4 of 19 , May 1 5:38 PM
          • 0 Attachment
            " If these advantages were offered to you, would you say "Fuck
            you!" or "Thank you"?"

            Definitely a "fuck you" since these "advantages" were not "offered" but forced, at the point of a gun, and for the most part were used for the "advantage" of the colonizers, not the people they colonized.

            Charles is right, why are you trying to equate international trade with conquest?

            On 5/1/07, Rad Geek < agitate@...> wrote:

            tony_hollick wrote:

            > Colonialism brought immense advantages to African peoples, who
            > seemed to have missed out in their isolation. Roads, vehicles,
            > railways, bridges, harbours, electricity, clean water, drainage,
            > improved agriculture, bicycles, kerosene lamps, markets, sewing
            > needles, axes, farm implements, books, a written language, maps,
            > mathematics, libraries, dams, irrigation, the list is endless.

            Also concentration camps, mass expropriation of land for plantation
            agriculture, passbooks, apartheid. Oh, yes, and don't forget the immense
            advantages of baskets of severed hands.

            Could you please at least *try* to make some minimal effort to
            distinguish between the genuine boons of international free trade and
            cultural exchange, and the massive coercion--often cashed out in
            outright terror and atrocity--of global political control? There is
            absolutely no reason whatever to pretend, least of all among
            libertarians, that the former is dependent on the latter.

            -C


          • tony_hollick
            Charles: I *am* making such an effort. As with so many situations in life, colonialism has a balance sheet of assets and liabilities, gains and losses. What I
            Message 5 of 19 , May 1 6:20 PM
            • 0 Attachment
              Charles:

              I *am* making such an effort.

              As with so many situations in life, colonialism has a balance
              sheet of assets and liabilities, gains and losses. What I am gently
              trying to do is to get people to see these matter without the blinkers
              imposed by ideology.

              Unlike some people here, I had a father who was a tea planter in
              Uganda before the Great Depression hit. I had an oldest brother who
              grew up in Uganda and Zambia prior to his coming here to go to
              Imperial College to study mineralogy for a BSc. I have a good friend
              who was born on a 5,000 acre farm on the slopes of Mount Kenya.
              Another friend who lived in Rhodesia. Relatives who lived in the USA,
              and who are buried at Arlington. Relatives who do live in Western
              Canada right now.

              And I've taken the time and trouble to learn a bit about this.

              It's very odd, to be criticised in this way by people who would
              not exist had British colonialism not occurred. Are they saying that
              they would rather not exist? >:-}

              Regards,

              Tony


              --- In LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com, Rad Geek <agitate@...> wrote:
              >
              > tony_hollick wrote:
              >
              > > Colonialism brought immense advantages to African peoples, who
              > > seemed to have missed out in their isolation. Roads, vehicles,
              > > railways, bridges, harbours, electricity, clean water, drainage,
              > > improved agriculture, bicycles, kerosene lamps, markets, sewing
              > > needles, axes, farm implements, books, a written language, maps,
              > > mathematics, libraries, dams, irrigation, the list is endless.
              >
              > Also concentration camps, mass expropriation of land for plantation
              > agriculture, passbooks, apartheid. Oh, yes, and don't forget the immense
              > advantages of baskets of severed hands.
              >
              > Could you please at least *try* to make some minimal effort to
              > distinguish between the genuine boons of international free trade and
              > cultural exchange, and the massive coercion--often cashed out in
              > outright terror and atrocity--of global political control? There is
              > absolutely no reason whatever to pretend, least of all among
              > libertarians, that the former is dependent on the latter.
              >
              > -C
              >
            • Mike Park
              I had a father who was a tea planter in Uganda before the Great Depression hit. On land stolen at gun point form the people who lived there. But I m sure
              Message 6 of 19 , May 1 6:51 PM
              • 0 Attachment
                "I had a father who was a tea planter in
                Uganda before the Great Depression hit."

                On land stolen at gun point form the people who lived there. But I'm sure your Dad generously hired them back to work on the plantation for next to nothing.

                "I have a good friend
                who was born on a 5,000 acre farm on the slopes of Mount Kenya."

                Ditto.

                " Another friend who lived in Rhodesia."

                Ditto again.

                " And I've taken the time and trouble to learn a bit about this."

                As have most of the rest of us. Which is why we abhor Empires. Look around Tony, you are on a list of libertarians and anarchists, people who want to do away with the state - all states - let alone global super-states that force their culture and rule on other peoples against their will through violence, coercion, terror and even genocide. All for the benefit of the Imperial motherland, not the conquered colony.

                You are advocating a position that it is alright for on person or group of people to use force and aggression against another to impose their will for the benefit of the aggressor. I can't imagine a position more un-libertarian. Its not about silly "assets and liabilities" its about the basic right of every person not to be agrgessed against. The only person wearing the blinkers of ideology is you - clearly a statist and apologist for Empire, where might makes right.

                " It's very odd, to be criticised in this way by people who would
                not exist had British colonialism not occurred. Are they saying that
                they would rather not exist? >:-}"

                Actually, yes. Because other people who would be free and unmolested would be here in my stead. And rather than not existing, I would likely be either in Scotland or Wales, and still criticizing the English.

                It is irrelevant whether or not I would exist, your position is wrong and deserves criticism. If I didn't exist, then I wouldn't exist to care, now would I?


                On 5/1/07, tony_hollick <StarGateAcademy@...> wrote:


                Charles:

                I *am* making such an effort.

                As with so many situations in life, colonialism has a balance
                sheet of assets and liabilities, gains and losses. What I am gently
                trying to do is to get people to see these matter without the blinkers
                imposed by ideology.

                Unlike some people here, I had a father who was a tea planter in
                Uganda before the Great Depression hit. I had an oldest brother who
                grew up in Uganda and Zambia prior to his coming here to go to
                Imperial College to study mineralogy for a BSc. I have a good friend
                who was born on a 5,000 acre farm on the slopes of Mount Kenya.
                Another friend who lived in Rhodesia. Relatives who lived in the USA,
                and who are buried at Arlington. Relatives who do live in Western
                Canada right now.

                And I've taken the time and trouble to learn a bit about this.

                It's very odd, to be criticised in this way by people who would
                not exist had British colonialism not occurred. Are they saying that
                they would rather not exist? >:-}

                Regards,

                Tony



                --- In LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com, Rad Geek <agitate@...> wrote:
                >
                > tony_hollick wrote:
                >
                > > Colonialism brought immense advantages to African peoples, who
                > > seemed to have missed out in their isolation. Roads, vehicles,
                > > railways, bridges, harbours, electricity, clean water, drainage,
                > > improved agriculture, bicycles, kerosene lamps, markets, sewing
                > > needles, axes, farm implements, books, a written language, maps,
                > > mathematics, libraries, dams, irrigation, the list is endless.
                >
                > Also concentration camps, mass expropriation of land for plantation
                > agriculture, passbooks, apartheid. Oh, yes, and don't forget the immense
                > advantages of baskets of severed hands.
                >
                > Could you please at least *try* to make some minimal effort to
                > distinguish between the genuine boons of international free trade and
                > cultural exchange, and the massive coercion--often cashed out in
                > outright terror and atrocity--of global political control? There is
                > absolutely no reason whatever to pretend, least of all among
                > libertarians, that the former is dependent on the latter.
                >
                > -C
                >


              • Rad Geek
                ... No, you re not. Colonialism is a political phenomenon. It is not the same thing as international free trade, although often new trade routes are
                Message 7 of 19 , May 1 10:21 PM
                • 0 Attachment
                  tony_hollick wrote:

                  > I *am* making such an effort.

                  No, you're not. Colonialism is a political phenomenon. It is not the
                  same thing as international free trade, although often new trade routes
                  are established alongside political control. The good things that you
                  mention, which sometimes were indeed introduced because of contact with
                  European agriculturalists, merchants, miners, missionaries, etc., were
                  one and all things that had no essential connection with colonial
                  policies; they could and did get spread all around the world by
                  voluntary trade between equals. Colonialism--i.e. the creation and
                  maintenance of dependent territories through the use of political
                  coercion--*did*, on the other hand, have an essential connection with
                  all the atrocities I mentioned and many more besides.

                  The benefits of free trade and cultural exchange, which could have been
                  gained without conquest or expropriation or mass slaughter, and were in
                  many other countries throughout the world, are not benefits that can be
                  put on colonialism's balance sheet, unless you completely ignore the
                  distinction that you claim you are trying to keep in mind. The "assets
                  and liabilities" to be assessed are quite different from what you listed
                  above.

                  -C
                • thorenstd124
                  That s pretty arrogant,Tony. Unfortunately,America would have been a European colony,even if The British would have been completely laissez-faire,and
                  Message 8 of 19 , May 1 10:21 PM
                  • 0 Attachment
                    That's pretty arrogant,Tony.

                    Unfortunately,America would have been a European colony,even if The
                    British would have been completely laissez-faire,and isolationist.It
                    just would have been a predominately French,Spanish,or Portuguese
                    colony.All of Canada,would probably be French.Who is to say what such
                    an America would be like ?Given the treatment of natives,by the
                    Spanish,and Portuguese,they might have suffered even worse.


                    Roger

                    --- In LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com, "tony_hollick"
                    <StarGateAcademy@...> wrote:
                    >
                    >
                    > Charles:
                    >
                    > I *am* making such an effort.
                    >
                    > As with so many situations in life, colonialism has a balance
                    > sheet of assets and liabilities, gains and losses. What I am gently
                    > trying to do is to get people to see these matter without the blinkers
                    > imposed by ideology.
                    >
                    > Unlike some people here, I had a father who was a tea planter in
                    > Uganda before the Great Depression hit. I had an oldest brother who
                    > grew up in Uganda and Zambia prior to his coming here to go to
                    > Imperial College to study mineralogy for a BSc. I have a good friend
                    > who was born on a 5,000 acre farm on the slopes of Mount Kenya.
                    > Another friend who lived in Rhodesia. Relatives who lived in the USA,
                    > and who are buried at Arlington. Relatives who do live in Western
                    > Canada right now.
                    >
                    > And I've taken the time and trouble to learn a bit about this.
                    >
                    > It's very odd, to be criticised in this way by people who would
                    > not exist had British colonialism not occurred. Are they saying that
                    > they would rather not exist? >:-}
                    >
                    > Regards,
                    >
                    > Tony
                    >
                    >
                    > --- In LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com, Rad Geek <agitate@> wrote:
                    > >
                    > > tony_hollick wrote:
                    > >
                    > > > Colonialism brought immense advantages to African peoples, who
                    > > > seemed to have missed out in their isolation. Roads, vehicles,
                    > > > railways, bridges, harbours, electricity, clean water, drainage,
                    > > > improved agriculture, bicycles, kerosene lamps, markets, sewing
                    > > > needles, axes, farm implements, books, a written language, maps,
                    > > > mathematics, libraries, dams, irrigation, the list is endless.
                    > >
                    > > Also concentration camps, mass expropriation of land for plantation
                    > > agriculture, passbooks, apartheid. Oh, yes, and don't forget the
                    immense
                    > > advantages of baskets of severed hands.
                    > >
                    > > Could you please at least *try* to make some minimal effort to
                    > > distinguish between the genuine boons of international free trade and
                    > > cultural exchange, and the massive coercion--often cashed out in
                    > > outright terror and atrocity--of global political control? There is
                    > > absolutely no reason whatever to pretend, least of all among
                    > > libertarians, that the former is dependent on the latter.
                    > >
                    > > -C
                    > >
                    >
                  • thorenstd124
                    To this I would only add one thing.Not only do most of us hate Imperialism,and the super states needed to maintain an empire,none of us advocate
                    Message 9 of 19 , May 1 10:49 PM
                    • 0 Attachment
                      To this I would only add one thing.Not only do most of us hate
                      Imperialism,and the "super states" needed to maintain an empire,none
                      of us advocate mercantalism,the economic model,advocated by the likes
                      of The British and Dutch East India Companies,and the economic engine
                      of The British Empire.Mercantilism,was a poison brought over to
                      America,by the likes of Alexander Hamilton.Mercantilism,is companies
                      in bed with the state.Mercantilism is crony capitalism,only designed
                      to make an elite few rich.Mercantilism is proto-fascist.Mercantilism
                      is not free market.This is a list made up of Agorists,Mutualists,
                      Anarcho-Capitalists,and Georgists.None of whom support mercantilist
                      empires.I might not exist as I do now,but I would probably be some
                      sort of rabble-rouser,in Germany,Poland,or France,railing against the
                      ruling elite,there.



                      Roger

                      --- In LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Park"
                      <johnnycannuk@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > "I had a father who was a tea planter in
                      > Uganda before the Great Depression hit."
                      >
                      > On land stolen at gun point form the people who lived there. But I'm
                      sure
                      > your Dad generously hired them back to work on the plantation for
                      next to
                      > nothing.
                      >
                      > "I have a good friend
                      > who was born on a 5,000 acre farm on the slopes of Mount Kenya."
                      >
                      > Ditto.
                      >
                      > " Another friend who lived in Rhodesia."
                      >
                      > Ditto again.
                      >
                      > " And I've taken the time and trouble to learn a bit about this."
                      >
                      > As have most of the rest of us. Which is why we abhor Empires. Look
                      around
                      > Tony, you are on a list of libertarians and anarchists, people who
                      want to
                      > do away with the state - all states - let alone global super-states that
                      > force their culture and rule on other peoples against their will through
                      > violence, coercion, terror and even genocide. All for the benefit of the
                      > Imperial motherland, not the conquered colony.
                      >
                      > You are advocating a position that it is alright for on person or
                      group of
                      > people to use force and aggression against another to impose their
                      will for
                      > the benefit of the aggressor. I can't imagine a position more
                      > un-libertarian. Its not about silly "assets and liabilities" its
                      about the
                      > basic right of every person not to be agrgessed against. The only person
                      > wearing the blinkers of ideology is you - clearly a statist and
                      apologist
                      > for Empire, where might makes right.
                      >
                      > " It's very odd, to be criticised in this way by people who would
                      > not exist had British colonialism not occurred. Are they saying that
                      > they would rather not exist? >:-}"
                      >
                      > Actually, yes. Because other people who would be free and unmolested
                      would
                      > be here in my stead. And rather than not existing, I would likely be
                      either
                      > in Scotland or Wales, and still criticizing the English.
                      >
                      > It is irrelevant whether or not I would exist, your position is
                      wrong and
                      > deserves criticism. If I didn't exist, then I wouldn't exist to
                      care, now
                      > would I?
                      >
                      >
                      > On 5/1/07, tony_hollick <StarGateAcademy@...> wrote:
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > Charles:
                      > >
                      > > I *am* making such an effort.
                      > >
                      > > As with so many situations in life, colonialism has a balance
                      > > sheet of assets and liabilities, gains and losses. What I am gently
                      > > trying to do is to get people to see these matter without the blinkers
                      > > imposed by ideology.
                      > >
                      > > Unlike some people here, I had a father who was a tea planter in
                      > > Uganda before the Great Depression hit. I had an oldest brother who
                      > > grew up in Uganda and Zambia prior to his coming here to go to
                      > > Imperial College to study mineralogy for a BSc. I have a good friend
                      > > who was born on a 5,000 acre farm on the slopes of Mount Kenya.
                      > > Another friend who lived in Rhodesia. Relatives who lived in the USA,
                      > > and who are buried at Arlington. Relatives who do live in Western
                      > > Canada right now.
                      > >
                      > > And I've taken the time and trouble to learn a bit about this.
                      > >
                      > > It's very odd, to be criticised in this way by people who would
                      > > not exist had British colonialism not occurred. Are they saying that
                      > > they would rather not exist? >:-}
                      > >
                      > > Regards,
                      > >
                      > > Tony
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > --- In
                      LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com<LeftLibertarian2%40yahoogroups.com>,
                      > > Rad Geek <agitate@> wrote:
                      > > >
                      > > > tony_hollick wrote:
                      > > >
                      > > > > Colonialism brought immense advantages to African peoples, who
                      > > > > seemed to have missed out in their isolation. Roads, vehicles,
                      > > > > railways, bridges, harbours, electricity, clean water, drainage,
                      > > > > improved agriculture, bicycles, kerosene lamps, markets, sewing
                      > > > > needles, axes, farm implements, books, a written language, maps,
                      > > > > mathematics, libraries, dams, irrigation, the list is endless.
                      > > >
                      > > > Also concentration camps, mass expropriation of land for plantation
                      > > > agriculture, passbooks, apartheid. Oh, yes, and don't forget the
                      immense
                      > > > advantages of baskets of severed hands.
                      > > >
                      > > > Could you please at least *try* to make some minimal effort to
                      > > > distinguish between the genuine boons of international free
                      trade and
                      > > > cultural exchange, and the massive coercion--often cashed out in
                      > > > outright terror and atrocity--of global political control? There is
                      > > > absolutely no reason whatever to pretend, least of all among
                      > > > libertarians, that the former is dependent on the latter.
                      > > >
                      > > > -C
                      > > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      >
                    • tony_hollick
                      Roger: These matters are not to be determined by head-counting. What you re saying is that you abjure evil-doing, just as I do. That s only too easy to say.
                      Message 10 of 19 , May 2 4:47 AM
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Roger:

                        These matters are not to be determined by head-counting.

                        What you're saying is that you abjure evil-doing, just as I do.

                        That's only too easy to say.

                        Yet you may be found amongst those who advocate the unlimited
                        ownership of nuclear weapons (as SEK3 did) and who have no respect
                        whatever for national boundaries or the States that define them. It
                        is only too easy to see how this could lead to militarized companies
                        fighting each other across the world for market share -- fighting by
                        every means presently held in State military arsenals (including
                        Intelligence, PsyWar, non-lethal weaponry etc.) for market share.

                        How this can be imagined to constitute a libertarian cornucopia
                        is beyond me. Yet every element of it is supported by someone here,
                        I'd guess. And anarchism has no means of preventing it. Careless...

                        Regards,

                        Tony


                        --- In LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com, "thorenstd124"
                        <thorenstd124@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > To this I would only add one thing.Not only do most of us hate
                        > Imperialism,and the "super states" needed to maintain an empire,none
                        > of us advocate mercantalism,the economic model,advocated by the likes
                        > of The British and Dutch East India Companies,and the economic engine
                        > of The British Empire.Mercantilism,was a poison brought over to
                        > America,by the likes of Alexander Hamilton.Mercantilism,is companies
                        > in bed with the state.Mercantilism is crony capitalism,only designed
                        > to make an elite few rich.Mercantilism is proto-fascist.Mercantilism
                        > is not free market.This is a list made up of Agorists,Mutualists,
                        > Anarcho-Capitalists,and Georgists.None of whom support mercantilist
                        > empires.I might not exist as I do now,but I would probably be some
                        > sort of rabble-rouser,in Germany,Poland,or France,railing against the
                        > ruling elite,there.
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > Roger
                        >
                        > --- In LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Park"
                        > <johnnycannuk@> wrote:
                        > >
                        > > "I had a father who was a tea planter in
                        > > Uganda before the Great Depression hit."
                        > >
                        > > On land stolen at gun point form the people who lived there. But I'm
                        > sure
                        > > your Dad generously hired them back to work on the plantation for
                        > next to
                        > > nothing.
                        > >
                        > > "I have a good friend
                        > > who was born on a 5,000 acre farm on the slopes of Mount Kenya."
                        > >
                        > > Ditto.
                        > >
                        > > " Another friend who lived in Rhodesia."
                        > >
                        > > Ditto again.
                        > >
                        > > " And I've taken the time and trouble to learn a bit about this."
                        > >
                        > > As have most of the rest of us. Which is why we abhor Empires. Look
                        > around
                        > > Tony, you are on a list of libertarians and anarchists, people who
                        > want to
                        > > do away with the state - all states - let alone global
                        super-states that
                        > > force their culture and rule on other peoples against their will
                        through
                        > > violence, coercion, terror and even genocide. All for the benefit
                        of the
                        > > Imperial motherland, not the conquered colony.
                        > >
                        > > You are advocating a position that it is alright for on person or
                        > group of
                        > > people to use force and aggression against another to impose their
                        > will for
                        > > the benefit of the aggressor. I can't imagine a position more
                        > > un-libertarian. Its not about silly "assets and liabilities" its
                        > about the
                        > > basic right of every person not to be agrgessed against. The only
                        person
                        > > wearing the blinkers of ideology is you - clearly a statist and
                        > apologist
                        > > for Empire, where might makes right.
                        > >
                        > > " It's very odd, to be criticised in this way by people who would
                        > > not exist had British colonialism not occurred. Are they saying that
                        > > they would rather not exist? >:-}"
                        > >
                        > > Actually, yes. Because other people who would be free and unmolested
                        > would
                        > > be here in my stead. And rather than not existing, I would likely be
                        > either
                        > > in Scotland or Wales, and still criticizing the English.
                        > >
                        > > It is irrelevant whether or not I would exist, your position is
                        > wrong and
                        > > deserves criticism. If I didn't exist, then I wouldn't exist to
                        > care, now
                        > > would I?
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > On 5/1/07, tony_hollick <StarGateAcademy@> wrote:
                        > > >
                        > > >
                        > > > Charles:
                        > > >
                        > > > I *am* making such an effort.
                        > > >
                        > > > As with so many situations in life, colonialism has a balance
                        > > > sheet of assets and liabilities, gains and losses. What I am gently
                        > > > trying to do is to get people to see these matter without the
                        blinkers
                        > > > imposed by ideology.
                        > > >
                        > > > Unlike some people here, I had a father who was a tea planter in
                        > > > Uganda before the Great Depression hit. I had an oldest brother who
                        > > > grew up in Uganda and Zambia prior to his coming here to go to
                        > > > Imperial College to study mineralogy for a BSc. I have a good friend
                        > > > who was born on a 5,000 acre farm on the slopes of Mount Kenya.
                        > > > Another friend who lived in Rhodesia. Relatives who lived in the
                        USA,
                        > > > and who are buried at Arlington. Relatives who do live in Western
                        > > > Canada right now.
                        > > >
                        > > > And I've taken the time and trouble to learn a bit about this.
                        > > >
                        > > > It's very odd, to be criticised in this way by people who would
                        > > > not exist had British colonialism not occurred. Are they saying that
                        > > > they would rather not exist? >:-}
                        > > >
                        > > > Regards,
                        > > >
                        > > > Tony
                        > > >
                        > > >
                        > > > --- In
                        > LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com<LeftLibertarian2%40yahoogroups.com>,
                        > > > Rad Geek <agitate@> wrote:
                        > > > >
                        > > > > tony_hollick wrote:
                        > > > >
                        > > > > > Colonialism brought immense advantages to African peoples, who
                        > > > > > seemed to have missed out in their isolation. Roads, vehicles,
                        > > > > > railways, bridges, harbours, electricity, clean water, drainage,
                        > > > > > improved agriculture, bicycles, kerosene lamps, markets, sewing
                        > > > > > needles, axes, farm implements, books, a written language, maps,
                        > > > > > mathematics, libraries, dams, irrigation, the list is endless.
                        > > > >
                        > > > > Also concentration camps, mass expropriation of land for
                        plantation
                        > > > > agriculture, passbooks, apartheid. Oh, yes, and don't forget the
                        > immense
                        > > > > advantages of baskets of severed hands.
                        > > > >
                        > > > > Could you please at least *try* to make some minimal effort to
                        > > > > distinguish between the genuine boons of international free
                        > trade and
                        > > > > cultural exchange, and the massive coercion--often cashed out in
                        > > > > outright terror and atrocity--of global political control?
                        There is
                        > > > > absolutely no reason whatever to pretend, least of all among
                        > > > > libertarians, that the former is dependent on the latter.
                        > > > >
                        > > > > -C
                        > > > >
                        > > >
                        > > >
                        > > >
                        > >
                        >
                      • Nathan Shepperd
                        ... Firstly, I think you d find that many left libertarians would suggest that nuclear weapons would be far too expensive to contemplate in a free market, as
                        Message 11 of 19 , May 2 5:22 AM
                        • 0 Attachment
                          On 02/05/07, tony_hollick <StarGateAcademy@...> wrote:
                          >
                          > Yet you may be found amongst those who advocate the unlimited
                          > ownership of nuclear weapons (as SEK3 did) and who have no respect
                          > whatever for national boundaries or the States that define them. It
                          > is only too easy to see how this could lead to militarized companies
                          > fighting each other across the world for market share -- fighting by
                          > every means presently held in State military arsenals (including
                          > Intelligence, PsyWar, non-lethal weaponry etc.) for market share.
                          >

                          Firstly, I think you'd find that many left libertarians would suggest
                          that nuclear weapons would be far too expensive to contemplate in a
                          free market, as they are subsidized to an enormous degree. Nuclear
                          Power is likewise incredibly wasteful, and rarely adopted to the
                          degree it is in France, and then probably only because of even greater
                          subsidies.

                          All you're doing is making a vague claim that anarchy would be no
                          better or slighty worse. I can't really see what this has to do with
                          cheerfully hailing colonialism as a jolly good thing for those
                          backward Africans who were unable to decide their own fate.

                          I suppose what some of us are wondering is why you are even bothering
                          to post here if you aren't that interested in debating the points
                          other people raise.
                        • tony_hollick
                          Nathan: Actually, what you re complaining about is precisely that I _do_ debate issues other people raise (or neglect to raise). I subscribe to the idea of
                          Message 12 of 19 , May 2 7:04 AM
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Nathan:

                            Actually, what you're complaining about is precisely that I
                            _do_ debate issues other people raise (or neglect to raise).

                            I subscribe to the idea of getting nearer to the truth by means
                            of conjectures and refutations. Critical Rationalism.

                            Some people seem to find this uncomfortable because they're
                            emotionally-attached to their conjectures. This is harly my fault.

                            In my book, criticism is often more valuable than friendship.
                            If you don't want me to discuss your ideas critically, you should
                            say so. I'm not the "Amen Chorus."

                            Regards,

                            Tony


                            --- In LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com, "Nathan Shepperd"
                            <exadenlar@...> wrote:
                            >
                            > On 02/05/07, tony_hollick <StarGateAcademy@...> wrote:
                            > >
                            > > Yet you may be found amongst those who advocate the unlimited
                            > > ownership of nuclear weapons (as SEK3 did) and who have no respect
                            > > whatever for national boundaries or the States that define them. It
                            > > is only too easy to see how this could lead to militarized companies
                            > > fighting each other across the world for market share -- fighting by
                            > > every means presently held in State military arsenals (including
                            > > Intelligence, PsyWar, non-lethal weaponry etc.) for market share.
                            > >
                            >
                            > Firstly, I think you'd find that many left libertarians would suggest
                            > that nuclear weapons would be far too expensive to contemplate in a
                            > free market, as they are subsidized to an enormous degree. Nuclear
                            > Power is likewise incredibly wasteful, and rarely adopted to the
                            > degree it is in France, and then probably only because of even greater
                            > subsidies.
                            >
                            > All you're doing is making a vague claim that anarchy would be no
                            > better or slighty worse. I can't really see what this has to do with
                            > cheerfully hailing colonialism as a jolly good thing for those
                            > backward Africans who were unable to decide their own fate.
                            >
                            > I suppose what some of us are wondering is why you are even bothering
                            > to post here if you aren't that interested in debating the points
                            > other people raise.
                            >
                          • tony_hollick
                            Nathan: You neglect to take note of the glaringly obvious fact that _thousands_ of nuclear weapons _already_ exist. Do you propose to stop people buying and
                            Message 13 of 19 , May 2 7:12 AM
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Nathan:

                              You neglect to take note of the glaringly obvious fact that
                              _thousands_ of nuclear weapons _already_ exist.

                              Do you propose to stop people buying and selling them?

                              If so, how? Do you intend to initiate aggression in order to
                              prevent commerce in nukes?

                              Regards,

                              Tony

                              PS: Colonialism did have its advantages for the millions of Africans
                              who _were_ able to decide their personal destinies for the first time
                              in history.


                              --- In LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com, "Nathan Shepperd"
                              <exadenlar@...> wrote:
                              >
                              > On 02/05/07, tony_hollick <StarGateAcademy@...> wrote:
                              > >
                              > > Yet you may be found amongst those who advocate the unlimited
                              > > ownership of nuclear weapons (as SEK3 did) and who have no respect
                              > > whatever for national boundaries or the States that define them. It
                              > > is only too easy to see how this could lead to militarized companies
                              > > fighting each other across the world for market share -- fighting by
                              > > every means presently held in State military arsenals (including
                              > > Intelligence, PsyWar, non-lethal weaponry etc.) for market share.
                              > >
                              >
                              > Firstly, I think you'd find that many left libertarians would suggest
                              > that nuclear weapons would be far too expensive to contemplate in a
                              > free market, as they are subsidized to an enormous degree. Nuclear
                              > Power is likewise incredibly wasteful, and rarely adopted to the
                              > degree it is in France, and then probably only because of even greater
                              > subsidies.
                              >
                              > All you're doing is making a vague claim that anarchy would be no
                              > better or slighty worse. I can't really see what this has to do with
                              > cheerfully hailing colonialism as a jolly good thing for those
                              > backward Africans who were unable to decide their own fate.
                              >
                              > I suppose what some of us are wondering is why you are even bothering
                              > to post here if you aren't that interested in debating the points
                              > other people raise.
                              >
                            • Nathan Shepperd
                              ... You may claim that you are debating, but you haven t been responding with anything specific. What I d like to see is a better effort at trying to argue why
                              Message 14 of 19 , May 2 7:19 AM
                              • 0 Attachment
                                On 02/05/07, tony_hollick <StarGateAcademy@...> wrote:
                                >
                                > Actually, what you're complaining about is precisely that I
                                > _do_ debate issues other people raise (or neglect to raise).
                                >
                                > I subscribe to the idea of getting nearer to the truth by means
                                > of conjectures and refutations. Critical Rationalism.
                                >
                                > Some people seem to find this uncomfortable because they're
                                > emotionally-attached to their conjectures. This is harly my fault.
                                >
                                > In my book, criticism is often more valuable than friendship.
                                > If you don't want me to discuss your ideas critically, you should
                                > say so. I'm not the "Amen Chorus."
                                >

                                You may claim that you are debating, but you haven't been responding
                                with anything specific. What I'd like to see is a better effort at
                                trying to argue why colonial violence is justified by the benefits, or
                                at least what you consider to be benefits. So far a number of us have
                                tried to engage you on this and you seem to be avoiding it. You simply
                                appear to assume that the benefits are a good trade-off without any
                                further qualification.
                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.