The Boston Tea Party: Revival of the Revolutionary Spirit

234 years ago, a symbolic gesture by a handful of patriots lit the brushfires of liberty in the minds of the American colonists. These patriots dumped unjustly taxed British tea into Boston Harbor to send a message that the colonists would not implicitly accept the right of the British government to tax them without representation in parliament. The Boston Tea Party spread the message of freedom across the colonies, and in three short years, the Declaration of Independence gave birth to a new nation, conceived in liberty, and promising a new era to its inhabitants that the world had never witnessed before.

The American Revolution was the culmination of the intellectual discovery of liberty. How rare the occasion that the world finally got a chance to try it. The achievement of liberty, however, was in a constantly precarious state. The founders warned us to remain vigilant of our liberties, and jealously guard our rights; failure to do so was to invite tyranny to return and uproot the freedoms that could only be secured by the spirit of the Revolution.

234 years later, our complacency has allowed us to gradually fall into tyranny again. It does not take a keen eye to see our liberties eroded. The PATRIOT Act, income tax, regulations, subsidies, censorship, expansion of the money supply through fiat paper currency, eminent domain, interventionalist foreign policy, aggressive warfare, large standing armies, gun control, suspension of Habeas Corpus on demand, and all other forms of aggression and plunder the state takes part in; all of these have served in the undermining of our civil liberties, and more egregiously, they have served to encroach upon our inalienable rights to life, liberty, and private property.

Essentially, the spirit of the American Revolution has been sold out for the desire to be secure; secure from terrorism, secure from poverty, secure from competition, and secure from responsibility.

Thus, I propose a reminder of the revolutionary spirit through the Declaration of Independence… with some slight adjustments:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present [United States Government] is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world

THEY have revoked our civil liberties through legislation riddled with vague Orwellian language, in the name of combating terrorism.

THEY have passed legislation to protect uncompetitive industry from competition, which directly hurts the consumers.

THEY willfully ignore the Constitution in order to achieve their desired goals, thus ignoring the only peaceful constraint on the government the people have.

THEY have levied unjust income taxes on the citizens, only to squander the plunder on expanding bureaucracy that further solidifies the state’s authority.

THEY have committed theft of the people in order to enforce egalitarianism.

THEY have devalued the currency of the United States through legal tender laws and the expansion of the fiat paper money supply.

THEY have used taxes and borrowed funds to expand their empire and secure their empire around the world.

THEY have unsuccessfully attempted to abolish personal responsibility through protectionism and the welfare state.

THEY have forced the people to conform to harsh regulatory practices in order to legally trade among each other.

THEY have placed sanctions, bans on trade, with nations that they see as a threat to their agenda.

THEY have encroached upon the right to bear arms through unjust gun control laws.

THEY have encroached upon the freedom of speech in a plethora of ways, among them regulation on campaign contributions, regulation on free association, censorship, etc.

THEY have seized rightfully earned property for the “common good” through the justification of eminent domain to be used for public and private agendas.

THEY have raided the national debt to astronomical levels.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our [American] brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature [president, or courts] to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

[As I am not advocating violent separation from the government, I will leave the last paragraph in tact with reference towards Britain]

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

The moral of this reminder is that tyranny is alive and well in America. I fear that revolution is the only means by which we can restore our liberties, and reign in the government back to its defined duties. This revolution does not need to be a violent one. We have been given the peaceful opportunity to work within the system, and in lieu of the sword, my instrument of intellectual revolution is the pen.

Today, on the anniversary of the Boston Tea Party, spread the message of liberty. Make a donation to Ron Paul’s campaign, or take the time to remind someone of the forgotten spirit of the American Revolution. It is in your hands, the educated and enlightened individuals, to help the blind populace to find its way again, and reacquire the jealous defense of their liberties once again.

Where the Left Gets it Wrong

The Washington Post this morning had a short article about a book by Sen. Byron L. Dorgan (D-N.D.). The book is apparently calling Democrats to return to anti-free trade and strict regulation of their former era.

What can I say, I'm still against both parties, even if one has the right stance on the war

The government is not God...

Great article by Dmitry Chernikov over at lewrockwell.com


I love the last paragraph:

It should be clear then that the common admonition that we have nothing to fear from the state if we have done nothing wrong is false even on the face of it. The state is not God; when will we understand that? In the 20th century in many societies good men and women learned to fear the state, while the worst rose to the top. What we must do therefore is make it on earth as it is in heaven by restraining and scaling down the state and by breaking down its monopoly without any reverence for it, lest it turns evil, as it has so many times in human history, and as it has now in a variety of ways.

Bush's first Veto

My friend Taylor and I recently had an email discussion over the vetoed stem cell bill...

I can't seem to make it format correctly for my blog, he has the transcript up on his... He keeps me on my toes

enjoy, comment, ignore, or remain ambivilant...

Logic

Great article at lewrockwell.com on the irrational logic of state intervention...

I plan to say more on this later, but this will suffice for now

For Big Business? That I am not

I am never sure what is meant by Big Business... but every time I hear about it, it seems to be in connection with a company or industry that has major ties to the government. So for the record, when I talk about big business, I am referring to a company which has used the government to actively reduce their competition and/or increase their profits.

With that said, check out the latest sickening use of government to advance an industry’s profits, in my own home state of Missouri.

Matt Blunt… so-called conservative governor of Missouri, mandated… Mandated… that gas stations must sell gasoline with an ethanol blend. It just happens that his brother and business partners of Blunt are involved the ethanol business. So what he’s essentially done is to force gas stations, under threat of a heavy government hand, to buy and sell a certain product. Supposedly it’s no more expensive than gasoline, but I would like to see whether that has anything to do with the subsidies it is already receiving.

The law was passed under the premise that it will contribute more to the Missouri economy.

“An economic impact study by the University of Missouri estimated that ethanol production at Missouri plants is projected to reach an annual capacity of 350 million gallons, creating $348 million dollars annually in value-added income to Missouri's economy and generating $726 million annually in economic activity.”

How they came up with these numbers is subject to scrutiny, I’m sure, but the law is obviously anti-free market, anti-liberty, and pro-state. It’s subsidizing an industry that is not profitable on its own yet, and in the process, unfairly coercing money from gas stations into the coffers of family and business partners of the Governor.

I don’t know, I haven’t studied enough on this issue yet… but from what I know so far, it makes me absolutely sick.

Its amazing to think the French once had Bastiat

A post in WoPo the other day brought more attention to the fact that France is, in the most polite terms, economically ignorant. The country is so caught up in socialist predispositions that it refuses to admit a link in the concurrent trends. High unemployment, fleeing businesses/businesspeople, rising xenophobia, could this all be connected to very high taxes on the “wealthy,” strict and ridiculous regulations that impede growth, and even riots.

Despite the fact that any competent economist can explain the link in these correlations, the socialists won’t believe it… it’s still the same old class warfare rhetoric that the “political class” has spouted off successfully for years.

“Socialist leaders and some government officials argue that the rich are merely
trying to shirk their social responsibilities by fleeing the country with their
millions.”

I find myself always trying to think of new ways to get this point across to people:

Businesses are inherently fulfilling social responsibility by maximizing profits to their shareholders.

These words enrage leftists for many reasons

1) Leftists do not believe in liberty.

Leftists cannot logically accept the idea of liberty. If you are going to coerce a person or business (against their will, at the threat of force behind it) into paying a portion of their own property (whether it is from their own labor, or the labors of a person that has left the property to them), you are, in essence, putting a stipulation on liberty. In other words, they are saying, you can be free, but not if you are successful.
The funny thing is that many leftists (not the full blown Marxist ones) don’t realize their hypocrisy on liberty. I should note that this mostly comes from anecdotal evidence, so you may take it with a grain of salt. When you put it on an individual basis, they will take the issue as more personal, and thus, tend to unknowingly go along with you. Let me elucidate: let’s assume you’re talking with a leftist about, oh, minimum wage. Give them an example:

Person 1: “Old man Clemons wants to hire someone to mow his lawn. You
offer to mow his lawn for $8/hour. Little Jimmy, however, offers to mow
his lawn for $4/hour. Old Man Clemons doesn’t see too much difference in
quality or qualification, so he decides to hire Little Jimmy. Is Old Man
Clemons wrong for doing this?

Person 2: No, he is less expensive for the same work.

P1: So Old Man Clemons has done nothing wrong to Little Jimmy? He isn’t forcing him into anything?

P2: No, Jimmy said he would mow the lawn for $4/hr, Clemons didn’t force him
to.

P1: Now if I wanted to open a business, and I said I would pay any new worker $4/hr to work for me, would that be wrong?

P2: Yes, $4/hr is below living wages. If you pay them less than $[x]/hr, you are
exploiting them, stepping on people, and should have your business shut down.

-_- oh well, lost the point on another…

Anyways, this works for many issues… but I am deviating from the subject at hand.

There is a second reason leftists can’t stand the idea that the social responsibility of a business is to offer profits to their shareholders, and that is their mentality of class.

2) Leftists are convinced of Class Warfare

The Marxist ideology accepts one key fallacy: The world is zero-sum. Essentially, they believe there is a fixed amount of wealth in the world, and the rich hold most of it unfairly.
This view stemmed in the early stages of the industrial revolution. This ideology was becoming outdated. Consumer products were pouring onto the market for the first time in history. People could own more than one set of clothes. Soon after, prices began to fall, offering goods and services to the masses. Advancements in technology were driving quality of life through the roof relative to years before. Classical Liberals were astounded at the triumph of liberty over aristocracy. The aristocracy was crumbling, and a meritocracy was taking hold. The alliance of throne and alter was beginning to break.
Even though the rich were no longer rich from coercion by government (for all intents and purposes), the Marxists still looked upon them as exploiters of the masses, keeping most of the wealth for themselves, leaving the masses with virtually nothing. We that derived of the classical liberal tradition know this isn’t true, but that is a debate for another day.

3) Egalitarianism

Egalitarianism brings a fuzzy feeling to the stomach of a leftist. It is the ideal for a Utopia. But how do you make everyone equal? The only way to do it is through coercion. Anyone who is wealthy should have to pay more than those who are not because they are wealthy and can afford it. This is the attitude portrayed. It is veiled in the desire to make everyone equal.

I can’t go along with the idea of egalitarianism though, because I believe strongly in freedom. Coercion is wrong when someone has done no wrong to you. I don’t believe in punishing someone because they have something I don’t. The only way this is justified is if they have something that belongs to someone else. So what if Paris Hilton is rich with family money? That money was made through private enterprise. Who the elder Hilton decides to leave it to is his own business. Paris Hilton’s money does not come at the expense of my own, and to take it away is only an act of malice, despite the better ways it could be used. Will she have the money forever? Probably not… a fool and his money are soon parted is a wise phrase. But I don’t know.

So I know what you are thinking (besides the fact that this is a long post). You are thinking “Leon, you’ve done a lot of explaining on why the leftists don’t like the idea that businesses only social responsibility is delivering a profit to their shareholders, but you haven’t explained why that is their only social responsibility.

Well, it can all be deduced down to freedom.

A person has the right to property that comes into existence through the product of his labor. Furthermore, people can trade that property, so long as the exchange is mutual. So long as the person does not infringe upon the rights of another, nothing wrong has been done.

The overarching theme of this is the absence of coercion, and the astounding thing is that it all works!

Mass production has produced a large supply of goods, and absence of coercion allows for competition to meet and compete for the demand. As a consequence, competitors are always trying to find new advances to get ahead of the competition. Entrepreneurs see a need in the market, so they try to fill it. All is done to seek a profit… and this “greed” comes out in lower prices and a wider variety of goods and services. Wealth is created, and quality of life rises. They fill privately what the Welfare state tries to create out of coercion.

Volumes can be written on this subject… but this post is already to long



So please… French Government… read Fredrick Bastiat, and try to return to those roots.

Back once again

It looks as if I’ve had a request for a return to blogging. I had no idea anyone actually read this thing. I thought it was just my personal journal, where I would write my rants about politics and economics, and wouldn’t care if anyone read it. I stopped blogging for a while, not because I gave up on it, I’ve just been doing other things. But if there someone that wants these posts, I’d be happy to continue. So without adieu, by request: My return to the blogosphere with how I form my opinions.

Philosophical Post:

Last year, I came to the conclusion that philosophy is an important subject. As per self-improvement, I believe that one should sit down at some point and think about why he or she believes the way he/she does. How does one form his or her beliefs?

For myself, I found that I had problems in my beliefs. They were inconsistent, and I could not explain why I believed them. I like to feel justified for believing things the way I do. I don’t like to have an opinion for the sake of having an opinion, and for the most part, I like to be consistent in my beliefs.

As Descartes pointed out in his meditations, though, it isn’t rational to break down each belief one by one to keep only what I know to be true. My most effective effort is to come up with a rational principle to live by, which would become my basis for evaluating arguments, and sifting through rhetoric to get to the heart of an issue. In other words, it is developing a moral to live by. Something that is, in a sense, an objective law for my beliefs. I believe that the overriding factor in making a decision is individual rights. It is at the heart of any issue that comes my way: Does this infringe upon an individual’s right to life, liberty, or property?

I am not always right, and I always remain open to others’ opinions. However, I do not sway easily. It takes compelling evidence in line with my base belief to convince me otherwise.

In essence, with these principles, I try to take on the issues effectively. I always try to argue from the grounds that freedom is good, and coercion is not, and any law or action that infringes upon freedom is unjust. I also mean to test blind faith in something, by pointing out fallacies, contradictions, and arguing against something I believe is just plain wrong.

So when one reads my opinions, and wonders how I came to the conclusion I did, I hope this can shed some light.