tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16218624.post4830758418233873862..comments2023-11-03T05:27:32.648-04:00Comments on Xibalba: xibalbahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00224952131898257723noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16218624.post-58762442712411122002012-04-27T17:54:16.293-04:002012-04-27T17:54:16.293-04:00That is of course special pleading. It is of cours...That is of course special pleading. It is of course very clear that Imperialist economic policy did in fact undermine the economy of India. It is for example a little known fact that from c. 1780 to c. 1920 the per capita income of the average Indian did NOT increase. Much of the wealth of India flowed into England. <br /><br />Of course it is also an admission that government intervention to alleviate the famines in question was required at the time. Finally I should point out that surprise, surprise India had, considering the climate remarkably few famines before the British came. <br /><br />Of course how the British government was responsible for the potato blight or drought in India is a little mysterious.xibalbahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00224952131898257723noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16218624.post-60444757345330915012012-04-19T01:54:24.836-04:002012-04-19T01:54:24.836-04:00I guess the best way for a libertarian to argue ab...I guess the best way for a libertarian to argue about the Irish famine of 1840's and the Indian famines of 1870-90's is stating that these were the ultimate result of British conquest and colonialism, and violent conquest by any government is not a libertarian principle. Thus, while government non-intervention was an immediate cause for famine, it had its ultimate genesis in government intervention. <br /><br />Such an argument would certainly require a more discontented approach towards history then some libertarians are willing to use, but I've seen some use similar arguments.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com