Are innies right?

Community Halo Universe
1

Let’s get little political in here:
You’re born on some colony and you’ll never even see Earth. Is there any reason why you should pay taxes to UEG or feel connection to goverment that’s hundreds of light years away?

We’re got used to point of view where insurectionists are wackos and terrorists (and some of them actually are), but isn’t their cause right? Spartan 2 program was made to prevent civil war that was going to take billions of casualties. If UEG knew that tensions are going to lead to such conflict, why they just don’t let colonies go?

Sure, with Covenant as common enemy whole mankind should unite (and did), but apart from that

Mickey Crespo or Vlad Scruggs

had their point.

2

Hard to answer because I tend to agree with both three statements.
The problem of innies is that they do terrorism against civilians, sometimes even of their own planet. In this way they can only get a military response from UNSC. UNSC is right to answer by force, but in this moment they should send surgeon to get cole back, kick hood in his -Yoink- and tell him to meet less the arbiter and more the colonies governors, and reunite all humans. No matter the taxes, it will still be a huge economical advantage to expand the market and a military one to have more allies. At this point many colonies have independence, I believe UEG should recognize them and ally. If they want to ally. If they don’t, then we need to get rid of them quickly, because it means that they aren’t people who fight for liberty, but true enemies of the UNSC. But this is the case of very few of them, there are others that desperately need UNSC support or will starve to death.

3

No. Unless they’re anarchists, they still believe in central government; just one with them on top.

4

I am unfortunately born in a country where the third statement actually holds truth, which I imagine will offend the inner sensibilities of some people.

5

Depends on the insurrectionist group to be honest.

6

> 2535420014591908;3:
> No. Unless they’re anarchists, they still believe in central government; just one with them on top.

What’s wrong with that?

7

They resorted to terrorism, and that is unnaceptable. They could have simply declared war, but purposefully nuking a populated city is a clear sign of terrorism. I am devoid of of compassion for those who have to resort to such dirty tactics such as killing innocent people with purpose. They are scum. Perhaps they are not all scum, but the main body (and the other organizations that resorted to terrorism and not honorable warfare) deserve no mercy. Not that warfare is honorable at its core, but there are some rules that shouldn’t be broke. The Innies broke those rules.

8

> 2533274867157068;7:
> They resorted to terrorism, and that is unnaceptable. They could have simply declared war, but purposefully nuking a populated city is a clear sign of terrorism. I am devoid of of compassion for those who have to resort to such dirty tactics such as killing innocent people with purpose. They are scum. Perhaps they are not all scum, but the main body (and the other organizations that resorted to terrorism and not honorable warfare) deserve no mercy. Not that warfare is honorable at its core, but there are some rules that shouldn’t be broke. The Innies broke those rules.

Some Innies are terrorists. The Freedom and Liberation Party (those who nuked Haven arcology) are just one of many cells. Not all who oppose the UEG are mass-murdering extremists.

9

The UNSC also nuked Far Isle, that would fall under state terrorism.

10

> 2533274820093296;1:
> Let’s get little political in here:
> You’re born on some colony and you’ll never even see Earth. Is there any reason why you should pay taxes to UEG or feel connection to goverment that’s hundreds of light years away?
>
> We’re got used to point of view where insurectionists are wackos and terrorists (and some of them actually are), but isn’t their cause right? Spartan 2 program was made to prevent civil war that was going to take billions of casualties. If UEG knew that tensions are going to lead to such conflict, why they just don’t let colonies go?
>
> Sure, with Covenant as common enemy whole mankind should unite (and did), but apart from that
>
>
> Mickey Crespo or Vlad Scruggs
>
>
>
>
> had their point.

There is a clear need post Halo 3 for some form of centralisation, but the current level of centralisation in the UEG is not sustainable. The UNSC and UEG should look at maintaining a few “federal” level organisations, chief among them being the armed forces. The colonies would still have to pay some level of tax to fund this…or else they can’t reasonably expect to be adequately protected from other interstellar powers who view them as a waste of space, heretics or food. An assortment of colonial militias being the only form of defence that the human race has would be a disaster beyond words in the event of another war like the Human-Covenant war. There needs to be a move away from Earth being the only voice in human affairs, and devolution of power to the colonies. There’s a really easily middle ground here, and I can only chalk it’s absence up to vested interests on Earth such as ONI, the UNSC and mega-corporations blocking it’s establishment.

11

> 2533274953123640;6:
> > 2535420014591908;3:
> > No. Unless they’re anarchists, they still believe in central government; just one with them on top.
>
>
> What’s wrong with that?

The point:

Innies are fighting for independence, right? To break away from a central government.
What do they do once they break away?
Set up a central government.

You hurt the overall stability of a unified group by breaking away, with the horrors of a distant central government as your purpose. Yet, when they break away, they just set up a central government of their own. The only difference is that they’re on top now.

It’s not a freedom fighter situation for everyone. They just want to put themselves on top, not end wrong practices.
It’s not exactly justified in the way their campaign tries to seem.

Of course, there are some who have more legitimate reasons and are more justified. But most just want to control themselves, rather than actually solve the problems they claim they’re fighting to be free from.

My opinion on the matter, is no. They’re generally not right.

There is error and wrong on both sides. The UEG isn’t an angel of prosperity and treatment, and some of its reactions have been a bit over the top (Far Isle). But many Innies responded with just the same evils (Haven Arcology).
What I see as one of the biggest drawbacks for the Innie cause is their reaction to the Covenant War.

If the Innies wanted freedom, independence, fairness, etc. … why did they continue to attack the UNSC while everyone was being annihilated by the Covenant? The group that claims to be for the people… actually abandons the people and acts completely detrimentally to their interests. The UNSC was the only force actively trying to protect the colonies, even if there are some instances where they couldn’t provide as much support as was needed. They tried, and faced the Covenant. The Innies either hid, just saving themselves, or continued to attack the UNSC and drawing resources away from the billions being slaughtered. The billions that they’d originally fought to free.

I also believe that, especially in space, unification is essential. Sure, it sort of makes sense that you shouldn’t have to pay taxes to a planet thousands of lightyears away. But would things be better if everyone was separate? Sure, you’d be independent. But you would lose the ability and incentive to support each other, both in terms of resources and the military.
An outer colony that is special for growing food will have lots of food, but no titanium for ships. So it will go back to other colonies anyway for supplies. All in all, not much has changed. You’re still dependent, and the other colony can now be more unfair to you. If you’re attacked, the other planets can turn a blind eye if it doesn’t suit their interests. Alliances will form, conflicts will still happen.

Unity is the best option. Why split into a bunch of independent planets that are still dependent on each other in now corruptible ways.
Sure, maybe the UNSC could be a little less controlling in some fields. But splitting humanity isn’t a beneficial answer.

12

The central government issue is kind of a sophism. What they want is power (legislative, executive,…) to be devolved to colonies. ie: Earth and the Inner Colonies not being able to impose laws (economic restrictions, etc) on people who never agreed to have them in the first place. (levelling the balance of power) There are also various reasons, for example colonial governments being ruled by megacorporate councils. Would insurrectionists have more power after an independence? Of course, in one way or another, that’s not supposed to be a secret. As for the whole “Innies betrayed the UNSC during the war”, once again it’s a too general statement, we also know that a lot of rebel movements stopped, went dormant, or joined the UNSC. Insurrectionists aren’t a single bloc, that’s the whole point.

13

> 2535420014591908;3:
> No. Unless they’re anarchists, they still believe in central government; just one with them on top.

I think you’re missing the point with what they want: Self determination. The right to rule themselves as a planet and as a people, as with many terrorist groups like the IRA and the PLO. That’s not to say the methods justify the means, but I think to say generalize all non-Anarchist governments as “Central Governments” with no regard to if they’re being ruled by a foreign power or not is a massive logical fallacy.

I mean, take the Rebels from Star Wars; they want to install a central government over the current one with themselves at the top. Does that automatically mean their cause is wrong?

Considering the UNSC is meant to be democracy, it raises the question why haven’t the Colonies been given a plebiscite or referendum?

> An outer colony that is special for growing food will have lots of food, but no titanium for ships. So it will go back to other colonies anyway for supplies. All in all, not much has changed. You’re still dependent, and the other colony can now be more unfair to you.

What? So basically any kind of trade between colonies suddenly makes one colony effectively the owner of the other colony?

I…yeah…no…wha? I mean, that just makes no sense. You do realize that trade is something that happens virtually all the time on Earth, and the entire Earth isn’t under a single government? Being depended on a nation for one resource does not mean the nation is dependent on that nation for everything.

Anyway, trade is actually beneficial for peace, because other nations can impose trade sanctions on aggressive colonies which is a peaceful deterrent.

14

> 2533274900126904;8:
> > 2533274867157068;7:
> > They resorted to terrorism, and that is unnaceptable. They could have simply declared war, but purposefully nuking a populated city is a clear sign of terrorism. I am devoid of of compassion for those who have to resort to such dirty tactics such as killing innocent people with purpose. They are scum. Perhaps they are not all scum, but the main body (and the other organizations that resorted to terrorism and not honorable warfare) deserve no mercy. Not that warfare is honorable at its core, but there are some rules that shouldn’t be broke. The Innies broke those rules.
>
>
> Some Innies are terrorists. The Freedom and Liberation Party (those who nuked Haven arcology) are just one of many cells. Not all who oppose the UEG are mass-murdering extremists.

That’s why I said the other organizations that resorted to extremism. Perhaps I should have made it more clear, nut I am aware that not all of them are terrorists.

15

Its a difficult one. If the colonies are relient on UEG recourses such as the UNSC then independence is stupid. Eath may need the colonies to prodguce food for them in which case independence is disastrous. Anideal situation is where both work to the mutual benegit of the whole. In a situation where one would be better served by independence, should they take it regardless of the other? each group will act as they see to be best for themselves but not necessarily with consideration of the whole.

16

Political independence doesn’t necessarily lead to no more trading. That is, as long as both respect each other. If insurrectionists got colonial independence against Earth’s will, the latter would probably boycott the colony.

17

> 2533274875814858;13:
> > 2535420014591908;3:
> > No. Unless they’re anarchists, they still believe in central government; just one with them on top.
>
>
> I think you’re missing the point with what they want: Self determination. The right to rule themselves as a planet and as a people, as with many terrorist groups like the IRA and the PLO. That’s not to say the methods justify the means, but I think to say generalize all non-Anarchist governments as “Central Governments” with no regard to if they’re being ruled by a foreign power or not is a massive logical fallacy.
>
> I mean, take the Rebels from Star Wars; they want to install a central government over the current one with themselves at the top. Does that automatically mean their cause is wrong?
>
> Considering the UNSC is meant to be democracy, it raises the question why haven’t the Colonies been given a plebiscite or referendum?

You want to talk about logical fallacies? How about the fact your argument only works if you first assume the conclusion is correct? Nice circular logic you’ve got going on there.

You’re splitting humanity into “themselves” and “foreigners” along the arbitrary boundary selected by the rebels. Why is this meaningfully different from the boundary selected by the UNSC, one that encompasses all of humanity? You could argue along democratic/geographical lines - “if the majority of people within a certain region want independence, it should be granted” - but you now have to tackle the issue of secession within the rebel community. The rebels would be hypocrites if they refused to let any people/region within their own territory secede. Every individual could declare the space they occupy as politically independent, and the rebels would either have to break their own code - meaning they can no longer morally object when the UNSC moves in and crushes them - or accept that any form of government is inherently voluntary and can be suspended by any subject at any time.

In short, rebels are simply power-hungry, and the UNSC is entirely justified in maintaining stability and unity.

18

> 2533274875814858;13:
> > 2535420014591908;3:
> > No. Unless they’re anarchists, they still believe in central government; just one with them on top.
>
>
> I think you’re missing the point with what they want: Self determination. The right to rule themselves as a planet and as a people, as with many terrorist groups like the IRA and the PLO. That’s not to say the methods justify the means, but I think to say generalize all non-Anarchist governments as “Central Governments” with no regard to if they’re being ruled by a foreign power or not is a massive logical fallacy.
>
> I mean, take the Rebels from Star Wars; they want to install a central government over the current one with themselves at the top. Does that automatically mean their cause is wrong?
>
> Considering the UNSC is meant to be democracy, it raises the question why haven’t the Colonies been given a plebiscite or referendum?
>
>
>
> > An outer colony that is special for growing food will have lots of food, but no titanium for ships. So it will go back to other colonies anyway for supplies. All in all, not much has changed. You’re still dependent, and the other colony can now be more unfair to you.
>
>
> What? So basically any kind of trade between colonies suddenly makes one colony effectively the owner of the other colony?
>
> I…yeah…no…wha? I mean, that just makes no sense. You do realize that trade is something that happens virtually all the time on Earth, and the entire Earth isn’t under a single government? Being depended on a nation for one resource does not mean the nation is dependent on that nation for everything.
>
> Anyway, trade is actually beneficial for peace, because other nations can impose trade sanctions on aggressive colonies which is a peaceful deterrent.

Why cut yourself off, when under one government those supplies are expected and regulated anyway?

What happens if that planet decides to stop giving them those resources? If they depended on that planet, they’re now cut off. Depending on the resource, that could be very bad.
Trade is good, but it can be manipulated and controlled. On a galactic scale, it becomes more important to be able to have what you need steadily. It can take weeks to get something else in. A more central, organized government can better maintain connections and needs, and keep things from being abused too much.

There are relationships between countries in history that show industries dependent on others. It was leverage a lot of times. A major industry in one country relies on another for resources used for that industry. Say that country abruptly cuts off its trade for whatever reason. That industry could potentially collapse.
They’re not dependent on the other for everything, but some things can be very impactful.
Why do sanctions work so well? If they weren’t in some way dependent on external forces for parts of their industry and economy, they could get on well when other countries cut them off. Instead, we even see examples today of economies collapaing under sanctions.

I’m not saying trade is bad. If kept peaceful and not exploited, it is immeasurably beneficial. But splitting everything up rather than keeping it under one government doesn’t exactly increase its efficiency, even though it may now be able to say that it’s independent.

19

Insurrection depends on how much people have their rights stripped from them (in this case, “no taxation without representation”). There is no inherent right for a superpower to uphold its power. I don’t see how he has committed a logical fallacy more than you.

(to WrittenPoppy)

20

I believe that each colony should be independent, like countries, but dilemmas like this should be discussed and settled AFTER the whole covenant empire hellbent to glass humanity crisis is dealt with. But terrorism will not help their cause, so I only agree with them to a certain extent.