These Courses Are Free To Trade Union Representatives; You Must: Fill & Download for Free

Fair question.If unions were truly voluntary, with respect to all parties, I don’t think there would be any principled opposition to them from a libertarian. However, depending on time and place, labor unions have historically fallen far short of this ideal:Early labor unions were racist, refusing to represent minority workers, and organized with the specific goal of keeping African Americans and immigrants from getting jobs in industry.Labor unions were instigators of violence, both against the persons and property of factory owners, but also against workers who did not sufficiently support a strike, and members of the public who bought products made by the factory while on strike.Labor unions, as they became part of the Democrat political machine, sold their souls in return for monopoly state privileges, including closed shops, agency fees, prevailing wage laws, etc.Although labor unions have lost much of the power they once held in America, they still operate by a state-granted monopoly. Once a work site has unionized, individual workers at that location have zero choice in the matter. They must go with the selection of the majority. This is not a voluntary solution.Imagine unionization was voted down, at a particular factory, 60% to 40%. Why should the 40% be denied union representation if they so desired it for themselves?Similarly, suppose 60% want to be unionized, but 40% want Union A and 20% want Union B? Why should one be granted a monopoly, and forced on the others? A voluntary market approach would have Union A represent the 40% who want them, and Union B represent the 20% who want them, and no representation at all for the 40% who want none.In other words, selecting an organization to represent your interests to your employer should be as free a choice as selecting a bank, a barber, or a bicycle. Your ability to make a choice according to your preferences should not depend on your preferences being in the majority.Of course, you can argue that having a single union would be more efficient, with less overlapping effort, etc. But efficiency, to a libertarian, is not an argument for denying freedom. You could just as well argue that it would be “more efficient” to ban many churches where they appear to have relatively minor doctrinal differences, and force them into a single church. That would make just as much sense, and would be just as anti-liberty.Finally, unions are not voluntary with respect to the employer. It is illegal for an employers to refuse to recognize or negotiate with the union. It is illegal for an employer to fire a worker for striking and replace them with another worker. It is illegal for an employer to give a bonus to non-striking workers unless the same bonus is also given to striking workers.Although it is not beyond the theoretical possibility that an employer could agree to limitations like the above voluntarily, in practice this has never occurred, at least not to my knowledge. These are restrictions placed on one party, for the sole benefit of the other party, by an government that seeks to benefit politically by granting this privilege. This is far from voluntary, and a libertarian would naturally oppose such coercive actions and abridgments of free association.

It is just like writing another answer. Simple introduction, a brief explanation and in the end conclusion. For better understanding, I’ll just share few of my answers.Q. Critically assess Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru’s views on Indian Nationalism. (200 Words)AnsTeg Bahadur Sapru was an eminent jurist and Indian nationalist. He was an active player during INM through his liberal approach. His views on nationalism were in sharp contrast with congress whether moderates or extremists or swarajists and also Muslim league and to propagate this he established liberal party.He believed that Indian Nationalism should be based on Self government under the British rule, through constitutional means. He did not believe in swaraj as he thought that India is yet not prepared for independence. So he did not support non cooperation movement or quit India movement that believed in overthrowing British rulers. Therefore, he participated in legislative council elections and demanded more constitutional reforms through petitions and memorandums. He also acted as a mediator between government and nationalists and Gandhi and Ambedkar. He was also against the partition of India and wanted to establish a federal government.However his views did not hold water due to growing resentment among people and rise of revolutionary activities. His liberal party lacked popular support and was more intellectual biased who did not take into account the popular sentiments, grass root resentment and feelings.Q. Evaluate Subhash Chandra Bose’s contribution to India’s freedom. (200 Words)AnsSubash Chandra Bose, known as netaji, was a staunch adversary of British rule in India. His role in INM was confined to last decades of independence but wielded great inflictions on brtsh prospect of ruling India.He believed in direct action against British through militaristic means. For this, he extensively toured provinces in order to create a stir among the youths and injecting a sense of sacrifice for India’s independence. This popularity let him get elected as President of INC in 1938 and 1939. He propagated great hater for the British and charted out a plan to cash in the World War II was a road map for India’s freedom. His approach was resented and he resigned from INC.He fled to Germany to set up an agenda with Nazis to wipe out British from India. He then landed at Singapore to organize Azad Hind Fauj which created apprehension in the minds of Indian government in latter stage.Though his freedom of seeing India freedom does not fructify, neither his Azad Hind Fauj attained its objectives due to end of world war, he was instrumental in mobilizing militant youth aspiring of blood of imperialists and putting last nail in coffin of British imperialism.How did the policy of free trade hurt Indian textile industry and crafts in the latter half of the nineteenth century? (250 words)AnsThe era of industrial revolution in England was marked by mass based and cheap products flooding the Indian colony. This was coupled by the single sided free trade policy of British government which eroded the manufacturing base of Indian economy and subdued it under colonial power.Second half of the 19th century was the age of production through machinery at cheaper rates. This provided competitive edge to these products in Indian market in relation to rudimentary techniques based Indian products. The free policy of British advocated for zero import duty on British export to India and a higher tariff on India products reaching abroad leading to squeezing out of Indian industries which were mainly handicraft based and textile based like cotton weaving, spinning and silk and woolen textiles.Further the inflow of foreign capital and foreign manufacturers, bankers, merchants, company and British servants contributed to the ruin of Indian textile base. They advocated for more access to Indian villages which led to replacement of Indian rulers and nobles or any privilege enjoyed by latter, by British officials. These rulers and nobles used to provide patronage to rural craftsman which was uprooted completely during this period leading to end to mode of livelihood of these crafts persons.Hence, the free trade policy adopted by British government was for the progress of British through export orientation leading to collapse of Indian textile industry and patronage enjoyed by crafts sector and hurt their sentimentsHow did the movement for the liberation of women receive a great stimulus from the rise and growth of the nationalist movement?AnsWomen witnessed long social boycotts and evil practices in Indian society. Gender discrimination was a blot on Indian society which was changed during the course of 19th century and withered away to a large extend in the 20th century. There were multifarious reasons and causations that led to liberation of women.The growth of intelligentsia class especially in Bengal and Maharashtra brought the deplorable conditions of the women to forefront. Continuous efforts from individuals like Ishwar Chandra Vidyasagar, Raja Ram Mohan Roy in Bengal and Panduranga etc in Maharashtra led to abolition of Sati, promotion of window remarriage and girl education. This stimulus benefitted the national movement during Swadeshi movement in which women were at vanguard in carrying out protests and picketing of liquor shops.Further impetus was provided by Gandhiji who reckoned women power as the main challenge to British authority and promotion of Swadeshi items. During the periods of Non cooperation movement Gandhiji brought women into nationalist mainstream discourse by giving them the opportunity to picket shops, boycott government products and organize mass protests by carrying out mock funerals and promoting charkha and khadi. Various women were brought into political platform and as representatives of India in Britain.In addition to that, women organizations were formed at regional levels and they actively participated in national mobilization and raised their voices at different platforms for different reasons. They even took to the arms to fight colonial power and established underground radio communication network for disseminating nationalist idea. The active participation in quit India movement helped in establishing a free Indian fighting force.Hence, foundation stone for the emancipation of women was laid by early nationalist who emancipated their social status and by providing them the political strength, the later nationalist made women a formidable power.Q “During the Indian national movement, the Left succeeded in making an impact on Indian society and politics”. Analyze.AnsThe left movement in India was both evolutionary and revolutionary. It was the product of Russian revolution that led to the creation of CPI by M.N.Roy. It was based on the ideology of socialism and communism which was not only embraced by political class but also took the shape of workers movement and changed the social milieu of the country.The initial phase of movement was marked by widespread conspiracy cases which created a wide popularity in different regions of the country leading to cropping up of new leaders in the countryside. It mobilized people for the creation of an economic just and political active popular base. The ideology of people oriented economic planning with defined goals was supported by political class and common man alike.Further the calls for nationalization of industries and organization of workers movements and peasants movements for their rights and creation of trade union was another fact that helped CPI gain clout over masses. The sudden increase in strike in factories for better working conditions, time and wages testifies the left movement’s national appeal. It provided political voice to workers through trade unions.On the political front, Many CPI joined the ranks of congress for acceleration of their socialist ideology on the national front. Its success can be gauged from the fact that after India’s independence, India opted for a socialist pattern of economy and state emerging as a welfare state.Left ideology has had great impact on revolutionaries like Bhagat Singh, Azad and Raj guru etc who through their militant’s works send shockwaves throughout the establishment and mobilized many others to take up arms against British imperialism.Thus, left ideology not only mobilized workers and peasants for their economic empowerment but also had a wide political followership.Q) Do you think that the Quit India movement was a Spontaneous Revolution?AnsAfter the failure of Cripps Mission, there was a sense of resentment among all sections of society. Congress felt betrayed due to British apathy towards its demand for a constituent assembly and the coming attack of Japanese on the east coast. Congress was left to nothing but to pass a resolution for demanding complete independence from British yoke and leave India in god’s hand.Though congress opted for a planned movement, the sudden arrest of its leaders including Gandhi Ji the very next day of resolution changed the character of the mobilization from a movement to a revolution. The violence was the result of continuous apathy of the British during world war which led to eruption and public outcry after the arrest of Congress leaders. This completely led to a standstill and people come out in support without any centralized leadership of congress. There was a sudden surge in the violence and destruction leading to damage of the public buildings. There was complete breakdown of administration machinery at various regional centers. There was a disruption in the communication lines of government. Various secret radio stations were started to disseminate the idea of movement which has gained a revolutionary zeal leading to arrest of thousands of people.The continuous repression of the people after NCM and CDM without any heed to their demand against the war issues coupled with the arrest of their leaders is the main reason for the movement turning out to be a revolution.Q. Explain the growth of communism in India. Has it lost its relevance in the post liberalization era? Critically comment.AnsCommunist genesis in India dates back to late 1920s after Russian revolution of 1917. M.N.Roy, a staunch communist was instrumental in evolution of communist and socialist ideology in India. This led to emergence of new leaders like Dange, Singravellu chettiar, Nalini gupta at regional and national level accelerating socialist agenda.However its gaining influence led British to declare it a banned outfit. This led the communist ideologues to get into the ranks of Congress in the form of CPI & CSP and later on various blocs developed. They resisted any kind of piece meal approach of the British and organized industrial strikes, Workers and Peasants conferences & developed a blue print for socialist society based upon transfer of all power to people, economic activities to be planned and controlled by state, nationalization of industries, redistribution of land.After independence, India opted for socialist agenda as a Directive Principle. The initial period was marked by imminent factionalism between communist party which led to its split. After LPG, CPI as a political outfit started losing its sheen. There has been disintegration of communism as a political ideology and as a party. However, there has been considerable rise in the demand for a new socialist and communist agenda that should balance both growth which is a capitalist imperative and welfare and equitable, inclusive development which is communism prerogative. This has been manifested in the form of grass root mobilization, resistance to different mining, nuclear projects and hydropower plants. New socialist agenda is also expressed in the form of trade union strike against disinvestment of PSE like NLC or resistance from labour unions in maruti plant.In conclusion it can be advocated that character of communism has changed from ideology based to need based and it is less organized and more revolutionary and parochial.Q Discuss the triggers for rapid Industrialization process in Western Europe and its growth during the nineteenth century.AnsIndustrialization is defined as a process in which a predominantly agrarian economy is transformed into a machine based industrial economy. The industrial revolution took place in England in particular and west Europe in general for the simple reason that pre requisites to industrial revolution were present there. The triggers were:1.Capital: It is the main requirement for purchasing land, machinery, raw material etc. Large savings by manufacturers and traders and plunder from colonies abroad was re invested in machinery and capital formation and expansion2.Techniques: There has been invention of new technology and funds were mobilized for research and development of more machines and improving the efficacy of older ones.3.Availability of cheap labour and workers which were hitherto poor agricultural peasants and slaves from colonies filled the need for unskilled human resource. This led to their exploitation and acceleration of wealth production in the factories.4.Western Europe was endowed with riches of natural resources like coal for production of power and iron for production of machinery.5.New modes of transport like inland waterways, road network, ports and railway broke the hitherto isolation of far flung areas and also helped in transportation of raw material to the factories.6.The colonies provided the market base for the machine based products through disproportionate tariff policyThe emphasis for rapid industrialization was also provided through the ideological support from the growth of philosophy of capitalism and rise of protestant ethics, new modes of education and science. The Calvinists and protestants receiving institutional support imbibed the value of material asceticism, entrepreneurship, law, discipline which had significant impact on the industrialization as a process.Q)“The peasant movements of the second half of the nineteenth century lacked a positive conception of an alternative society – a conception which would unite the people in a common struggle on a wide regional and all-India plane and help develop a long term political developments”. Critically examine.AnsPeasants movements in India was mainly the result of exploitative economic land policies and revenue system like zamindari, ryotwari and mahalwari introduced by east India company. The excessive state revenue demand and introduction of new classes such as zamindars, moneylenders impoverished the peasants forcing them to protest, revolt and rebel. The commercialization of agriculture leading to loss of land for the peasants coupled famines created a furore in the peasantry class.The protests took the shape of movements at various regional levels in the second half of 19th century. However, these mobilizations were mainly parochial in character and were aimed at zamindars, moneylenders. They have no vision for an all India movement and lack political understanding about the developments in the country. Further they were not against the imperial political power but against their way of extracting the revenue.The Santhal rebellion, Indigo revolt of 1860, Deccan riots were some of the revolts which do not challenged the authority of imperial system but instead challenged the local level petty zamindars and sub feudal landlords. The movements were short lived and lost their importance once the immediate concerns of the peasants were resolved. In addition to that, due to lack of communication between different regions and quick transport facility, lacks of educational and political awareness were the main reasons for the growth of peasants movements on a national front.Therefore it can be said that though imperial rule have been instrumental in bringing the change in structure of agricultural class through its various land revenue policy, most of the peasants mobilizations never challenged the authority of British rule and instead ravaged the zamindars and moneylenders in order to relieve themselves from the immediate bondage of debt.

Great question Ryan, and thanks for bringing this concept forward. You likely are already aware of the answer, as you picked the four specific countries that have actually already been contemplating such an alliance! The proposed union even has a name already spread about - CANZUK - the Canada-Australia-New Zealand-United Kingdom trade bloc. There is even a website (CANZUK International) currently promoting the idea to all four national governments, who are all in various stages of development of the idea locally:I believe strongly that the United Kingdom/Great Britain would indeed be best served by joining with these particular member states of the current British Commonwealth, to form a new trade bloc, like the EU - Australia, New Zealand and Canada (FULL DISCLOSURE: I was born I, and have lived all of my 51 years, as a citizen of Canada).You are correct that the personal, professional, business and national connections between these four particular countries is incredibly deep. Of course, this is because we are family, as you stated previously - Great Britain being our mother, and the other three nations (Australia, New Zealand and Canada) being sisters, who to this day very much love and respect one another.The trust and credibility built between these four nations goes all the way back to our individual founding as colonies of the British Empire, and now member states of the Commonwealth. The daughter states are all within 44 years of being the exact same age:New Zealand - May 7, 1856Dominion of Canada - July 1, 1867Commonwealth of Australia - January 1, 1901These four nations fought through two World Wars, the Great Depression, and a host of other challenging times… side by side.(from l to r, Rt. Hon. Malcolm Turnbull, Prime Minister of Australia, Rt. Hon. Teresa May, Prime Minister of Great Britain, Rt. Hon. Justin Trudeau, Prime Minister of Canada, and Rt. Hon. Jacinda Ardern, Prime Minister of New Zealand)We share Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II as our common monarch. A shared monarch is an essential aspect of CANZUK, who represents a global institution which has played an important role as a symbol of a common heritage and parliamentary tradition. The Crown has been the cornerstone of democratic government and the rule of law over a long history of peaceful constitutional development. It is instructive to note that the English speaking countries which have retained the monarchy have been far more successful in avoiding civil unrest than their republican counterparts.The four nations have the same Parliamentary governmental system, a similar Constitution, and are all members of the British Commonwealth. We have similarly-ranked and recognized educational institutions, as well as similar ideas in the business and financial realms, and geopolitical aspirations. The four nations also have, for the most part, the respect and trust of the majority of the nations of the world.Interest and support is already high in all four nations for such a trade bloc agreement:Overall National Average Support (in %):National Support by Region (in %):We have a similar racial profile, speak the same language (with some various differences that only make things more interesting at worst). Canada, Australia and New Zealand even share a similar currency with a near-identical value - the Dollar. For example, on December 14, 2018 (information provided by Google Finance)1 New Zealand Dollar equals 0.91 Canadian Dollar1 Australian Dollar equals 0.96 Canadian Dollar1 New Zealand Dollar equals 0.96 Australian DollarWith the United Kingdom “Brexiting” the European Union trade bloc and going on their own, this idea has gained newfound interest in the UK, and across the other three nations as well.This concept of a trade bloc consisting of the United Kingdom/Great Britain, as well as Canada, Australia and New Zealand was discussed in a February 13, 2017 Financial Post article, which I will quote verbatim for some excellent updated information. - In the Trump era, the plan for a Canadian-U.K.-Australia-New Zealand trade alliance is quickly catching on:Erin O’Toole, one of the candidates for the Conservative Party leadership, has made one of the key planks of his campaign his determination to “pursue a Canada, UK, Australia, New Zealand trade and security pact.” The idea of creating a “CANZUK” zone of free trade and free movement of labour is catching on elsewhere, too.In New Zealand, the junior coalition partner in the government, the Act New Zealand party led by David Seymour (who himself worked for five years in Canadian politics), is explicitly in favour of free movement and free trade within CANZUK.In official party circles within the U.K. and Australia, the wheels are grinding a little slower, but the former Australian prime minister Tony Abbott is already into most of the idea, proposing a free-trade agreement and free-movement area encompassing Australia, New Zealand and the U.K. And in Britain, Theresa May’s Conservative government has made it clear it wants new trade agreements with Canada, Australia and New Zealand as soon as possible after it leaves the EU.The idea of CANZUK begins with a free-trade agreement, free-movement area (the freedom to live and work in each others’ countries) and defence-partnership agreement. O’Toole favours all three of these main planks, and he’s right that it all makes perfect sense.The post-Cold-War alliances are obsolete. NAFTA is dead. The EU is losing a key member.The CANZUK countries, working closely together, would make a formidable contribution to world affairs. They would have the largest total landmass of any free-trade zone. They would collectively constitute the fourth-largest market in the world, after the U.S., EU and China.Their combined military spending would be the world’s third largest, well ahead of Russia, and on European Geostrategy’s geopolitical power index, the CANZUK countries collectively have a strength around 70 per cent of that of the U.S. — and nearly twice that of China or France. With a combined global trade footprint nearly twice as big as Japan’s, the CANZUK countries would have substantial influence in opening up global markets and guiding global regulation across a range of issues from banking to shipping to the environment.What makes CANZUK a natural union is perhaps self-evident. Canada, the U.K., Australia and New Zealand share a similar culture, similar values, and analogous legal, business and social systems that allow us to get along easily and interchangeably. (The term CANZUK was originally a term diplomats used to refer to these four countries because of how frequently they would vote the same way at the UN.)Most of the main issues our political parties focus upon are instantly comprehensible to anyone from another CANZUK state. Our laws and constitutions share many features, making trade deals and mutual regulatory recognition a relatively straightforward matter. Our citizens enjoy a roughly similar per capita GDP (which is just not true of the other Commonwealth nations with similar constitutions) and face few hurdles in integrating into another CANZUK country’s labour market. Our societies are peaceful and orderly.CETA is dead? Long live CUKTA. How Canada can save the best of CETA with a U.K. trade dealFrom Brexit to CANZUK : A call from Britain to team up with Canada, Australia and New ZealandAnd in our modern globalized world, we see that we are much more similar to each other than we are to others. The challenges of dealing with Japanese or Chinese business partners can be overcome, but they cannot be denied. Continental Europeans have different foibles, different goals and different priorities from ours, as well as importantly different legal and constitutional challenges. The arrival of President Trump reminds us of just how different from us many parts of the U.S. really are, and always have been.Furthermore, while the U.S., the EU and China can all make valuable trading partners in their different regions, each CANZUK state that encounters them is regionally overmatched and, standing alone, will inevitably be dominated. Working together though, exploiting our natural affinities and the world of mass communication, high-value services and rapid transit, CANZUK can allow us stand our ground and project our own values and agendas.The post-Cold-War alliances and assumptions are obsolete. NAFTA is dead. The EU will soon lose one of its largest members. Trump might downgrade NATO, abandon the WTO and even diminish the UN. It’s tempting, in a world of change, to try to cling to as much of the old certainties as possible. But if we look up and out, something new beckons. Free trade, free movement and a new security partnership between countries of shared culture and natural affinity. CANZUK is the global deal of tomorrow.Dr. Andrew Lilico, born in New Zealand but based in London, is executive director and principal of Europe Economics, a fellow of the Institute of Economic Affairs, and chairman of the IEA Monetary Policy Committee.