Why was there "taxation without representation" to begin with ? It is not as if the American colonist were not considered Englishman, they were. So why was an Englishman living in the colonies not given the same representation in Parliament as an Englishman that lived in Great Britain? Primarily it had to do with the type of economic system then in play in Europe known as mercantilism.
Mercantilism is economic nationalism for the purpose of building a wealthy and powerful state. Adam Smith coined the term “mercantile system” to describe the system of political economy that sought to enrich the country by restraining imports and encouraging exports. This system dominated Western European economic thought and policies from the sixteenth to the late eighteenth centuries. The goal of these policies was, supposedly, to achieve a “favorable” balance of trade that would bring gold and silver into the country and also to maintain domestic employment. In contrast to the agricultural system of the physiocrats or the laissez-faire of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the mercantile system served the interests of merchants and producers such as the British East India Company, whose activities were protected or encouraged by the state .
(emphasis added)
The reason that these enterprises were encouraged by the state was that it enriched members of the nobility and the "ruling class." The mercantile system allowed the state to "regulate" commerce to their advantage through various laws often known as "Acts". These regulations or "Acts" were designed not to promote economic growth as we know it today, at least here in America, they were designed to enrich the nation, in this case Great Britain. However here is where a very large distinction must be made, the "nation" as defined by those enacting these regulations was not thought of as the citizenry of the nation but rather those who through birth, royal appointment or political ingenuity were the "regulators." The "fat cats" if you will.
Many of these "Acts" were not only "taxing" on the colonist they seemed to have no "common sense" behind them. For example certain crops were deigned to be grown in specified colonies in order that those members of the "ruling class" who had an interest in that particular commodity could "control" it and enrich themselves by controlling its production and the state could tax or penalize any colony not so designated to be a producer of the the commodity. The British West Indies for example was designated to produce sugar and any other colony doing so, if caught, could be fined. Further in order for taxes to be paid often times the regulated commodity would have to go through designated ports, often in Great Britain itself so that the Crown could get its "cut". This all added to the price of goods and the regulations involved were a severe burden on commerce.
The lack of common sense in designating that something that could be produced in one colony was forbidden and instead was produced in another then shipped to a far off port to be taxed before it could be then shipped back to a colony which might be able to produce that product itself, only makes sense when seen through the eyes of a "ruling class" that benefits from such a regulated system.
This was the mercantilism system which spawned the American Revolution. If the British Government had allowed the colonist to have equal representation then this centralized system of governance and economy would have been not only threatened, it would have been finished, which it turned out to be anyway. The American colonies despite these "Acts" were already unlawfully operating under a free trade system, simply because no central government is powerful enough to control free enterprise between people. There are far more people than a government can hope to control for any period of time without the most draconian of methods, IE North Korea.
Farmer Joe has a cow that produces milk. Carpenter Jim can build a barn. Farmer Joe offers carpenter Jim a year of milk and cheese for use of his skills to build him a barn. Carpenter Jim does not like cheese but he trades some to seamstress Sue who mends his britches and so it goes, free trade and THE MAN in the Capital has not a clue. Yet all these ordinary people doing ordinary things necessary for their survival and well being could be breaking some law or regulation enacted in order to protect them from themselves. And the larger the government the more regulations will be enacted in order to justify an ever more expansive government to enforce more and more rules and regulations requiring more and more enforcers.
At some point, always, the system breaks down. Comon Sense is lost as the ruling class devolves into an isolated class whose sole purpose is to perpetuate the system which they depend upon for their survival. A system of control and regulation without which their power can not be sustained. They begin to live in a bubble, insulated from the general population by the very "Acts" they impose on their fellows. These "Acts" seem only logical to them because they no longer have to live by the real world consequences of their regulations. Life is a theoretical excercise never truly touching them directly since they are not of the word that they regulate. Ultimately human nature creeps in and regulations begin to be enacted not only to protect their little fiefdoms but also to enrich them. The people call it corruption, the ruling class calls it rewards for service, not even realizing that the service they are providing is increasingly looked upon as tyranny,
Finally, always, through revolution or other political processes the "masses" rebel and change the system. It is always the same whether it is is mercantilism, socialism, communism, fascism or its newest incarnation "state capitalism" they always fail, the ruling class is always overthrown.
The reason is simple there is only one ruling class that can never be overthrown it is WE THE PEOPLE.
Jer
Jer, that was great! Thanks! patti
ReplyDelete