Friday, March 26, 2010

Notes from our History Part 2: Risking Enslavement

The Colonists described the status quo and their position in it as "Risking Enslavement." Before you roll your eyes at the colonists for being melodramatic remember this: many of them were slave owners, or, by a different name, engine of wealth owners. Engine of wealth owners made their living by driving their engines of wealth as efficiently as possible and not by making them happy.

The Stamp Act of 1765 and the Towneshend Acts of 1767 really can be seen as what the claimed to be, taxes. Any government is going to need some taxes and anyone who denies this is an idiot. There is debate about how much to tax as well as what to tax but their will be some taxes no matter what. The Tea Act of 1773 however, crossed the line.

The British East India Company wasn't entirely separate from the British government as both drew from the aristocracy for their top positions. Rampant nepotism at the British East India Company led to mismanagement and in 1773 they were hurting bad financially. The solution they came up with was to get rid of a bunch of tea that was sitting rotting in warehouses they couldn't sell on the open market by getting Parliament to bail them out by giving them a monopoly in the American tea market. The tea was to be sold cheap (the quality of the tea is disputed, some say it was better than the tea the colonists were already getting and others say it was crap since it had been rotting in warehouses. Since they couldn't sell it on the open market, even at a discount, I suspect the latter) and no other tea could be imported to satisfy the tea addiction of the colonists.

Although the Crown would get some money from import taxes it was quite clear the purpose of the Act was to separate the colonists from their money for the benefit of one of the world's first corporations. While not quite the same as a highway stick up the distinction between the two is thin at best. We all know that a few radicals threw some tea into Boston Harbor and this is where things start to come together.

The Crown then demanded the tea be paid for by the Colony of Massachusetts and to this end enacted the Coercive Acts (called the Intolerable Acts on this side of the pond) to punish the colony until they paid for the tea. The Acts closed the Port of Boston, (which the colony economy depended on for both business and shipping food so they didn't starve) dissolved the colony legislature and local legislatures and even the right to assemble. It made the Governorship directly appointed by the King and all important positions appointed by the governor. Any British officials accused of a crime would be tried in England to side step the colonial legal system and British troops were quartered in peoples homes (a punitive measure of the day.) In effect, Massachusetts had its democracy striped for the actions of a few individuals. The colonists lost all legal recourse in one fell swoop. Theoretical fears of "risking enslavement" had just become reality.


What this means for us today:
When the Government makes the paradigm shift and sees a populace of engines, political recourse for the people becomes a burden, they start looking for ways to limit or eliminate accountability. Without accountability the Government is free to run on fiat. Look at the healthcare bill, the politicians for it went on and on about how they were nobly giving the American people what they wanted. Only the majority was against it, only 40% of Americans supported the bill while 49% hated it. The majority started screaming at the top of their lunges and got bushed off with a "don't listen to them, they asked for it" mentality.

This is where the present departs from history, because unlike the colonists we still have democracy to rectify the situation. We need to send a strong message to the Government that disregarding us will not be tolerated. Because as long as they think they can get away with it they just keep pushing it, like Parliament did in 1774.

No comments: