Gandhi Alive and Well and Barfing in his Lassi

Mahatma Gandhi, revered leader of the Indian Independence movement and brilliantly evolved man of peaceful struggle for independence and co-existence, is doing quite well, contrary to historical orthodoxy.

He is ill, however, after seeing one too many rounds of RP bashing, Mike Huckabee bashing, Mike Huckabee bashing, RP bashing on DP. He asks everyone to join him for a healthy discussion of politics in the cool comfort of his banyan tree, over a cup of good tea.

 

lol sounds good to me!

 

^^ yea.. what about it?

 

Nope, nope, nope - Bapu has just told me - no fights here. Would anyone like some more tea?

 

I <3 tea.

pour away

 

Bapu - The man of Non-violence...

His philosophy could succeed because his foes, in this case, the British colonialists, had dignity, morals. Thats why non-violence, non-co-operation, Satyagrah succeeded. Is there any precedent to it? None. Is there any other such example? Martin Luther King? No - He was not successful.

Imagine trying to apply this philosophy in African countries like Congo... It would never succeed. That is what I feel.

 

When logic and reason fails violence is the only viable solution. When someone tries to control my life this is war, when someone wants to put a fucking chip in my body against my will this is war, when I am not a free man this is war, when someone tries to come into my house when they are not welcomed this is war, when someone takes away my right to bare arms this is war, when someone poisons my food this is war. When will you people wake up!!! This is beyond the stage of playing nice.

 

Well, I guess having served in the military, the cost of war is something I feel quite keenly.

There is very little I'd kill over. More, actually, I'd die over.

 

Gandhi doesn't even have good i-trader.

 

Bapu told you? Are you like Munna Bhai?

 

I can't talk about it. Part of my Avatar code of silence.

 

Ghandi was a nationalist. There's not much good to be said for nationalism.

Ideas and morality are not bound by geographical borders.

 

Thanks for the laugh. Much appreciated!

They are also not homongenous. You can't have individual freedom without individuals.

 

Btw, I make a mean Chai, and prefer my Lassi salty rather than sweet.

 

Homogeneity is an attribute of groups, not of individuals.

"Group liberty", "group freedom", and "group rights" are all scams used by some individuals to gain undue influence over other individuals.

 

Right, and you are discouraging nationalism in favor of geographic freedom.

But they are not antonyms, and nationalism is not inherently immoral, even for a libertarian.

That is, unless you define libertarians as a group, with homogeneous beliefs. I think libertarians are individuals, with individual beliefs that may or may not be common.

 

"Nationalism" is defined by it's focus on group rights and is therefore inherently opposed to individual rights.

 

But if several individuals choose to participate in a group, should they not be allowed to do so?

By what moral prerogative would you remove the choice of self-determination, even if you think it is bad?

Again, this conflicts with libertarianism. It's the sort of logic that socialism is built on.

In one thread, you post about educational indoctrination (and I cheer and pound my desk), and then here, you talk about limiting personal choices or ideas because YOU consider them bad.

Understand, that under your just "Jeffersonian" global government, people would be able to practice and promote communism, authoritarianism and fascism. That's because Jefferson was a champion for personal liberty. He was a small government guy, which makes your use of his image as a symbol of global government ironic, if not a little bit sick, not unlike putting a picture of Andrew Jackson on a Federal Reserve Note.

 

Until they interfere with the rights of any individual -- this is the same rule that applies to individuals.

I'm not sure if your failure to understand is intentional or not.

Are you deliberately or unintentionally opposed to individual freedom?

 

Nationalism is an artificial construct, induced with the birth of industrialization. There is no primordial "nation," simply requiring the gossamer to be pulled back to reveal the natural state. It is a constructed, modern vision.

Gandhi. Ahead of his time. Brilliant man, developed soul - and I don't believe in soul.