Civil unrest may force June election...

earwicker

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

So Locke's Second Treatise of Government has nothing to do with social contract theory? Hmm.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

earwicker

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Rousseau's notion of the general will is often read as protecting the individual from the mass.

Your readings of political philosophy seem to be highly selective to say the least.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

earwicker

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Indeed. But it is not the only way to read it, which is my point.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

P. Breathnach

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

That is bollocks. You write as if there were no potato blight, and the famine of 1845-9 was just another instance of the unreliability of crop yields.

Most of the earlier (and later) famines were smaller in scale: poor crop yields rather than near-total crop loss for a number of consecutive years. Mind you, 1740-41 was pretty bad, as was the devastation that followed Cromwell's campaign in Ireland. They might now be better remembered if it were not for being dwarfed by the scale of the Great Famine.

In general, famine conditions in Ireland resulted in a higher death rate than did similar conditions elsewhere. This might be, probably can be, explained because private charity did not suffice. But that does not fit your model.

earwicker

My form of liberalism gives ethical primacy to natural rights, such as the right to own property, the right to be free from state coercion, and the right to equality under the law. You can't possibly argue that these rights were enjoyed by Ireland's Catholic population in eighteenth- and nineteenth-century Ireland, particularly during the era of the penal laws.

Just wanted clarification on this: this suggests that--from a Lockean perspective--an armed revolution would have been justified.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

earwicker

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

At the time at which you are referring to in your post.

I'm also wondering if, as someone who admits to subscribing to Locke's philosophy of "natural rights," you also think there are times when bloodshed can be rationalized/ justified.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

earwicker

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Okay. Thanks for clarifying.

portomar

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

\

i agree with breathnach on the above, you cant possibly compare the great famine with other ones on the basis of government (in)action alone. this sort of coulda-woulda-shoulda argument is sophist anyway. the fact that you think, but can't prove that the famine wouldn't have happened under a 'liberal' system is unprovable, what is certain is that the evolution of modern social democracy and the welfare state would have mitigated the effects by providing food and shelter for those affected....running up a massive deficit but who cares when we've seen the other possible effects? and you think the government did TOO MUCH in trying to care for the afflicted!? :eek:

anyway, im sure you'll persue your agenda, never running for election or even being able to vote for someone who shares your views (dana maybe!?) but some day you might get there, and become this guy! (look at no.4 Marcus Licinius Crassus: Fire Fighter for Profit!)

p.s. i dont care if you dont define me as liberal, i may be using the word incorrectly for all i know but the understood meaning in western political circles is quite different to your all or nothing approach

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

silverharp

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

it wasnt a freemarket problem thats for sure

What Caused the Irish Potato Famine?
Mises Daily by Mark Thornton | Posted on 5/20/2008

This article originally appeared in The Free Market, April 1998; Volume 16, Number 4.]

British Prime Minister Tony Blair apologized for doing "too little" in response to the Irish Potato Famine of the 19th century that killed one million people and brought about the emigration of millions more. But in fact, the English government was guilty of doing too much.

Blair's statement draws attention to the question of what caused the famine. Up to now, the popular theory is that the Irish were promiscuous, slothful, and excessively dependent on the potato. As a result they died by the hundreds of thousands when a blight appeared and ruined their food source, in the midst of one of the fastest economic growth periods in human history.

Was the Potato Famine an ecological accident, as historians usually say? Like most famines, it had little to do with declines in food production as such. Adam Smith was right that "bad seasons" cause "dearth," but "the violence of well-intentioned governments" can convert "dearth into famine."

In fact, the most glaring cause of the famine was not a plant disease, but England's long-running political hegemony over Ireland. The English conquered Ireland, several times, and took ownership of vast agricultural territory. Large chunks of land were given to Englishmen.

These landowners in turn hired farmers to manage their holdings. The managers then rented small plots to the local population in return for labor and cash crops. Competition for land resulted in high rents and smaller plots, thereby squeezing the Irish to subsistence and providing a large financial drain on the economy.

Land tenancy can be efficient, but the Irish had no rights to the land they worked or to any improvements they might make. Only in areas dominated by Protestants did tenant farmers have any rights over their capital improvements. With the landlords largely residing in England, there was no one to conduct systematic capital improvements.

The Irish suffered from many famines under English rule. Like a boxer with both arms tied behind his back, the Irish could only stand and absorb blow after blow. It took the "many circumstances" of English policy to create the knockout punch and ultimate answer to the Irish question.

Free-market economist J.B. Say was quick to note that the system of absentee landlords was deplorable. He accurately diagnosed this cause and grimly predicted the disastrous results that did follow. He sadly relayed the suggestion of a member of Parliament that the seas swallow up the Island of Erin for a period long enough to destroy everything on it.

The Malthusian law of population is sometimes used to explain away English guilt. Here the Irish were viewed as a promiscuous bunch that married young and had too many children. Malthus himself considered the Irish situation as hopeless. The Irish then paid for their sins via the starvation and disease that the famine wrought.

Were the Irish such a promiscuous bunch? The population of Ireland was high and the island had become densely populated after union with Great Britain in 1801. Part of this population growth can be attributed to basic economic development as population was also increasing rapidly in England and elsewhere in Europe.

In fact, the Irish population was only growing slightly faster than the English population and was starting from a much smaller base. But why was it growing faster? The answer lies in the fact that England had placed Ireland in an unusual position as the breadbasket for the Industrial Revolution.

The British Corn Laws were designed to protect local grain farmers from foreign competition. In 1801, these laws were extended to Ireland. The laws not only kept prices high; they protected against falling prices in years of plenty. The main beneficiaries of this protectionism were the English absentee landlords of Ireland, not the Irish.

The Irish people were able to grow large quantities of nutritious potatoes that they fed their families and animals. Landlords benefited from the fact that the potato did not deplete the soil and allowed a larger percentage of the estate to be devoted to grain crops for export to England.

Higher prices encouraged the cultivation of new lands and the more intense use of existing farmlands. A primary input into this increased production was the Irish peasant who was in most cases nothing more than a landless serf. Likewise, the population growth rate did slow in response to reduced levels of protectionism in the decade prior to the Famine.

This artificial stimulus to the Irish population was secure with English landlords in control of Parliament. However, English manufacturers and laborers supported free trade and grew as a political force. With the agitation of the Anti-Corn Law League, the Whigs and Tories agreed in 1845 to reduce protectionist tariffs and the Corn Laws altogether by 1849. The price of wheat plummeted in 1847 ("corn" being British for grains, especially wheat, the prime grain protected under the Corn Laws), falling to a 67-year low.

Repeal drastically impacted the capital value of farmland in Ireland and reduced the demand for labor as Irish lands converted from grain production to pasture. It should be clear that while free trade did bring about these changes, the blame for both stimulating prefamine population growth and the subsequent depopulation (the Irish population did not recover until 1951 and net emigration did not end until 1996) rests with English protectionism and the Corn Laws.

These price shocks made a population decline inevitable. As emigration became a viable option, many Irish decided to take the long and dangerous journey to the New World rather than the ferryboat to the factories of England.

Let us now take a look at the so-called laissez-faire approach that the English applied to the famine and for which Tony Blair apologized. This is important because it forms the backbone of the case that the free market cannot address famine and crisis (also that the IMF and FEMA are all the more necessary today).

Far from allowing the market to work, England launched a massive program of government intervention, consisting mainly of building workhouses, most completed just prior to the onset of the Famine.

Earlier, the Irish Poor Inquiry had rejected the workhouse as a solution to poverty. In the report, Archbishop Whately — attacked today for his free-market stand — argued that the solution to poverty is investment and charity, but these "radical" findings were rejected by the English who threw out the report and appointed George Nicholls to write a new one.

The workhouses, an early version of New Deal make-work programs, only made the problem of poverty worse. A system of extensive public works required heavy taxation on the local economy. The English officials directed money away from projects that would increase productivity and agricultural output into useless road building.

Most of these roads began nowhere and ended nowhere. Worse yet, the policy established by Sir Charles Trevelyan to pay below-market wages, which you can well imagine were pretty low, meant that workers earned less in food than the caloric energy they typically expended in working on the roads.

The British government opened soup kitchens in 1847 and these were somewhat successful because they mimicked private charity and provided nutrition without requiring caloric exertion or significant tax increases. But the kitchens were quickly ended. Next came a return of the workhouses, but again they could not solve the problem of poverty and hunger. In the summer of 1847, the government raised taxes, a truly callous act.

In addition to the fundamental failure of the government programs, workhouses, public works, and soup kitchens tended to concentrate the people into larger groups and tighter quarters. This allowed the main killer of the Famine — disease — to do its evil work.

Fewer Irish people had died in the numerous past famines; indeed, the potato blight did not severely afflict most of Europe. What was different in Ireland in the 1840s? The Irish Poor Law crowded out private charity. In previous famines, the Irish and English people had provided extensive charity. But why donate when the taxpayer was taking care of the situation? The English people were heavily taxed to pay for massive welfare programs. The Irish taxpayer was in no position to provide additional charity.

Reports concerning English policy towards genuine charity are hard to ignore. One account had the people of Massachusetts sending a ship of grain to Ireland that English authorities placed in storage claiming that it would disturb trade. Another report has the British government appealing to the Sultan of Turkey to reduce his donation from £10,000 to £1,000 in order not to embarrass Queen Victoria who had only pledged £1,000 to relief.

"We must comprehend that it is impossible to improve the economic conditions of the underdeveloped nations by grants in aid. If we send them foodstuffs to fight famines, we merely relieve their governments from the necessity of abandoning their disastrous agricultural policies."
Other factors played a role. The Bank Act of 1844 precipitated a financial crisis created by a contraction of money as a more restrictive credit policy replaced a loose one. Taken together these factors support John Mitchel's accusation that "the Almighty sent the potato blight but the English created the Famine."

Did the English create the Famine on purpose? This was after all an age of revolution, and the Irish were suspected of plotting yet another revolt. The "Irish Question" was of major importance and many Englishmen agreed with Trevelyan that God had sent the blight and Famine.

Ultimately, the question of blame is not as important as the question of cause. Even more importantly, the Famine is a source of great economic errors, such as the claim that famines are the fault of the market and free trade, and that starvation results from laissez-faire policy. Even Karl Marx was heavily influenced by events happening in Ireland as he wrote in London.

Ireland was swept away by the economic forces that emanated from one of the most powerful and aggressive states the world had ever known. It suffered not from a fungus (which English scientists insisted was just excessive dampness) but from conquest, theft, bondage, protectionism, government welfare, public works, and inflation.

As an American, I am hardly one to consider Mr. Blair's apology. However, if the apology had been for causing the Famine and for the welfare policies that made it so deadly, it would have much more to recommend it.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

P. Breathnach

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Yes. A data-free libertarian polemic.

Dannyboy83

P. Breathnach wrote: »

That is bollocks. You write as if there were no potato blight, and the famine of 1845-9 was just another instance of the unreliability of crop yields.

Most of the earlier (and later) famines were smaller in scale: poor crop yields rather than near-total crop loss for a number of consecutive years. Mind you, 1740-41 was pretty bad, as was the devastation that followed Cromwell's campaign in Ireland. They might now be better remembered if it were not for being dwarfed by the scale of the Great Famine.

In general, famine conditions in Ireland resulted in a higher death rate than did similar conditions elsewhere. This might be, probably can be, explained because private charity did not suffice. But that does not fit your model.

This is very interesting stuff lads, and I'm thoroughly enjoying it, like a game of political chess. (some of it is over my head to be honest)

I just want to clarify here.

The famine of 1870 was lessened in disaster
A) As a result of the huge decline and emigration of the earlier 1845 famine (self correction & the petri dish theory)
Better preparedness as a result of the earlier famine , I guess this would be the social aspect, which would support what P.Breathnach is saying.
C) Changes in the technology of food production
D) Different structures of land-holding (the disappearance of the sub-division of land and of the cottier class as a result of the earlier great famine)
E) income from Irish emigrants abroad which was sent to relatives back in Ireland,
F) and in particular a prompt response of the British government, which contrasted with its seriously misjudged Laissez faire response to the earlier Great Famine of 1845-1852. (i.e. more social, less liberal)

However
The first major famine 1740-1741, was averted in scale of crisis because the Irish themselves were not subject to Westminister and were able to close their own borders and stop the export of food (based on the accounts I've read), although approx 10% still perished.
This would be in favour of what dongealfella is saying in support of Liberalism.

So in essence, Socialisim provided a means of cure of 1870, whereas liberalisim provided a means prevention in 1740.
The result for the catastrophic collapse in 1845 was an absense of both liberalisim and and socialisim i.e an anarchic penal colony

The most telling thing is that the famines started after the removal of liberalisim & socialisim during the Cromwellian conquests starting in 1640s, to be repeated post Act of Union in 1845.
Post 1845, the Irish were begining to go places politically in the USA I guess.

All you can assert from the result of the middle famine was that there was either obscene carelessness and misrepresentation or genocidial intentions.


Here is another example like the Irish 1845 famine, where there was no liberalisim and no social welfare:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Years_of_Natural_Disasters
This killed over 30million people.

Anyway, back to the discussion.

Offalycool

To be fair, modern liberalism has progressed somewhat from Rousseau's social contract theory, John Rawls or Ronald Dworkin for example.

While I agree that protectionist actions of the British Empire exasperated the Irish Famine and possibly resulted in what could be termed “genocide”, The British Empire introduced policies that suited English landowners and consumers. Just because Ireland was supposedly represented as part of the empire does not mean the English state responsibly represented the Irish people as part of the Empire. In fact it goes without saying it did not. The market may well have provided better for the people if left alone, but Ireland may well have been just as well off if an social democratic Irish state existed at the time. Either way, its all speculation, and the modern political landscape is very different, at least in the west. We cannot forget the destructive roles of both public and private exploits in Ireland. British private interests, in a bid to enrich themselves exploited the Irish to the point the population became dependent on the potato, and continued to exploit them during the worst of the famine.

P. Breathnach

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

...The famine of 1870 was lessened in disaster
A) As a result of the huge decline and emigration of the earlier 1845 famine (self correction & the petri dish theory)
Better preparedness as a result of the earlier famine , I guess this would be the social aspect, which would support what P.Breathnach is saying.
C) Changes in the technology of food production
D) Different structures of land-holding (the disappearance of the sub-division of land and of the cottier class as a result of the earlier great famine)
E) income from Irish emigrants abroad which was sent to relatives back in Ireland,
F) and in particular a prompt response of the British government, which contrasted with its seriously misjudged Laissez faire response to the earlier Great Famine of 1845-1852. (i.e. more social, less liberal)

I think you mean 1879. There were a number of famines in Ireland in the 19th century, both before and after that which we call the Great Famine. The reason why 1845-49 captures most attention is that the food deficiency was far greater, and the gap between relief (charitable or institutional) and the people's need was greater, and the death toll was of a wholly different order of magnitude. That said, it may be that public policy was, as you suggest, informed by the failures in 1845-49.

However
The first major famine 1740-1741, was averted in scale of crisis because the Irish themselves were not subject to Westminister and were able to close their own borders and stop the export of food (based on the accounts I've read), although approx 10% still perished.
This would be in favour of what dongealfella is saying in support of Liberalism.

Just a quibble: 1740 was not the first major famine. That following Cromwell's visit to Ireland was probably more severe, but that one might be seen differently because it was largely man-made rather than attributable to nature.

I am not aware of the administration preventing exports in 1740. In any event, closing borders and preventing exports is not liberalism. Some estimates of the death toll are higher than 10%. But for 1845-49, it might be known today as The Great Famine.

So in essence, Socialisim provided a means of cure of 1870, whereas liberalisim provided a means prevention in 1740.

Both overstatements, I think.

The result for the catastrophic collapse in 1845 was an absense of both liberalisim and and socialisim i.e an anarchic penal colony

Let's clear up a few points:
1. Ireland was not overpopulated in 1845; the land had the capacity to feed the people.
2. The Famine was nobody's fault. It was a natural disaster. The debate centres about the reaction to that disaster.
3. There was an absolute food deficiency in the country, not merely a potato deficiency. If food exports had been banned, and nothing else done, there would have been widespread starvation.
4. More food entered Ireland during the Famine than left it.
5. Most of those involved in exporting food, and many who opposed relief measures, were Irish people. It is probably better to interpret events as a struggle between rich and poor rather than between British and Irish.
[My source for points 3 and 4 is Cormac O Grada's study of the Famine, but I cannot cite exactly because I have mislaid my copy. I think he might also have made point 5, but I could be mistaken on that.]

The most telling thing is that the famines started after the removal of liberalisim & socialisim during the Cromwellian conquests starting in 1640s, to be repeated post Act of Union in 1845.

There were famines before Cromwell's time, but not much liberalism or socialism.

All you can assert from the result of the middle famine was that there was either obscene carelessness and misrepresentation or genocidial intentions.

I do not believe the genocidal interpretation. I don't quite believe the carelessness interpretation. I think there was a real failure in Westminster to comprehend the scale of the disaster, coupled with a lack of compassion, a doctrinaire public policy, and an inadequate administrative structure.

Darragh29

See this???

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2009/0320/breaking5.htm

That's how you do it, bang, 90% tax on bonuses, no messing, fannying around or hopeless bullsh*tting.

donegalfella

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

look at south africa, you want to create a big divide between who has and who hasnt, enjoy paying security firms, having 7 foot walls with an additional 1 foot electric fence, having electric gates as a necessity, having to watch your every move when you are coming to a stop in your car, having dogs as guard dogs not pets. might sound extreme but if you make some1 poor, ie taking away benefits, do you think they will sit around and hope the charities will help. i for 1 would rather give social welfare and try to educate and make some1 willing to work rather than they them no option but to rob to survive

road_2_damascus

Darragh29 wrote: »

See this???

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2009/0320/breaking5.htm

That's how you do it, bang, 90% tax on bonuses, no messing, fannying around or hopeless bullsh*tting.

Yes, very positive.. glad to see it. The bank executives and bosses in receipt of these massive payouts should be wiped from the face of the earth... has the world gone soft or something.. SKy digital and PS2 = mass labotomy

Darragh29

road_2_damascus wrote: »

Yes, very positive.. glad to see it. The bank executives and bosses in receipt of these massive payouts should be wiped from the face of the earth... has the world gone soft or something.. SKy digital and PS2 = mass labotomy

+1, the US are blessed to have a President that isn't directed by vested interests and to have a guy who won't take any crap, just acts immediately, no bullsh*t or messing like we have over here, decision made = decision executed, end of issue, next problem.

Meanwhile back on the ranch, Lenihan is writing to the banks asking them for their thoughts on remuneration for banking executives and drinking tea with them, you couldn't make it up!

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

donegalfella

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

i hear what you are saying, my point is if such a measure of taking away benefits from those who didnt contribute would create such a 2 tier system and would result in similar crime, just look at the antisocial behaviour in irelands youth, imagine they turn 18 and dont recieve a penny after they cant find work, they will continue with antisocial behaviour but to a much worse degree

on south africa, people forget the indians suffered under aparthide but they flourished after it ended, but yes the government did create the situation but zimbabwee created a much worse situation after white rule ended. dont get me wrong i am totally against aparthide but south africa over its crime is slipping big time, we do not want ireland slipping the same way over taking away benefits for people.

silverharp

P. Breathnach wrote: »

2. The Famine was nobody's fault. It was a natural disaster. The debate centres about the reaction to that disaster.

You cant underplay the land use policy/reality that led up to it, that side of the debate should be just as important.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

P. Breathnach

silverharp wrote: »

You cant underplay the land use policy/reality that led up to it, that side of the debate should be just as important.

I didn't underplay it; I ignored it. I was dealing with a number of common misconceptions about the famine, and I don't think there is much misunderstanding of land tenure in Ireland at the time.