4 ms·

The Founding Fathers: Smugglers, Tax Evaders, and Traitors

31 points by gscott 8y ago

kapauldo 8y ago
What is this, fox news? Socialism is most certainly not "unlimited government control and taxation of everything and everybody" and this is most certainly not what the colonists were escaping. This is a broad brush, romantic, red meat, not provable to anyone who is not willing to invest the time to read to confirm, but well written position similar to what what fox news frequently uses. Pilgrims wet not escaping socialism, they were escaping monarchy. This is so stupid.
tnzn 8y ago
>Socialism. It wasn't called socialism in those days, but that is what it was—unlimited government control and taxation of everything and everybody What ?! Seriously ? Taxes = sociamism ?
smithmayowa 8y ago
Stunning read particularly the part about colonist cutting and selling trees marked for the government to smugglers and feathering tax collectors. America has always been the wild west and Americans have always been wild folks, they just civilised themselves somewhat mostly due to the immense wealth they got after world war two, hence the surprise I get when people are surprised they do things like Iraq and the whole middle east expedition or when people are amazed at their strong gun rights.
- i_am_nomad 8y ago
  If only we Americans could be refined and civilized people like the British, the French, the Germans, the Indians or the Chinese, none of whom have any history of savagery or military aggression.
  - kace91 8y ago
    As a Spaniard I feel left out.
    - i_am_nomad 8y ago
      Lo siento, mi hermano.
      - tarrinowser 8y ago
        Hey yeah, the Spanish Conquistadors were all up on Central and South America’s grill and Conquistadors translates literally to Conquerors. Why’d ya leave out Spanish Conquerors?
Blackstone4 8y ago
I feel like this is a low quality article. > Why? What in Europe could have been so horrible that rational people would risk their lives and their children's lives to escape it? > Socialism. It wasn't called socialism in those days, but that is what it was—unlimited government control and taxation of everything and everybody. There were no free markets and no free enterprise. Regardless of how honest or hard working a person was, it did him little good unless he was in bed with the government. I don't think this author understands what socialism is...from Wikipedia: "Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production."[0] At that period in time, economies were run for those at the top (similar to the 1%). It was centralized control i.e. not a system characterised by social ownership. I feel like there are some people who think that if a society does not have free markets then it must be socialist (i.e. !free markets == socialism). This is not the case. You wouldn't call the current Russia political system socialist.... it's authoritarian. I feel like the author is ignorant. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
- frostburg 8y ago
  It's written by and for parody libertarians / anarcho-capitalists. You shouldn't have any expectation of intellectual integrity.
- lawlessone 8y ago
  >This is what the American Revolution was all about—treason. And this treason was regarded as moral, ethical, and right in every way. Maybe it's a defence of Trump lol.
frostburg 8y ago
This is the outlet that published the notorious "Stateless in Somalia and loving it" propaganda piece.
- dang 8y ago
  On HN we judge things by the article, not by the outlet, and certainly not by the lousiest thing an outlet published. Our cupboards would be pretty bare if we did that.
tomohawk 8y ago
The crucial advance was not just in understanding that laws should govern a population, but that they should also govern government itself. And not only that, but that this would take hold in a population to the point where they would put everything at risk to fight for it. Hence, the US Constitution specifically enumerates the powers (rights) of government, and leaves the rights of the people unlimited.
- mafm 8y ago
  Your crucial advance began with the Magna Carta. The history of England is basically the story of how the Government of England became increasingly limited by the laws of England. (At least that was a central theme of David Hume's wildly popular 18th century "History of England".) And yeah, many people in England gave their lives fighting to progress that goal around the same time that the Americans declared independence.
  - tomohawk 8y ago
    Absolutely. This tradition is one of the greatest legacies that ties together the Anglo-sphere.
mark_l_watson 8y ago
Great read. I credit the mises.org web site for convincing me to get out of the US stock market in 2007 and I generally like their Austrian Economics outlook. The article is full of humor, and I understand if other people in this thread don’t like it. It would be a dull world if we all had the same philosophy of life and business. I especially liked the opinions in the article around what motivated people to risk all to come to America.
- bwb 8y ago
  Big difference between opinion piece and someone pretending they know something about history.
Kaibeezy 8y ago
Anarchist roads, rutted and muddy, are what can expediently be cut through wilderness. Ideally, they lead to smooth and fast paved roads between and through populated places, paid for by fair contributions from all, for the benefit of all, at a reasonable price, as agreed to by the majority. When unfairness arises, whether in the manner of compelling contributions, distribution of benefit, unreasonable price, or without majority consent, that’ll be trouble. We’ve seen the process and results repeatedly before, so why can’t we do more about what’s happening now? Where’s the balance point? How do we find it and rest there instead of swinging wildly past it in both directions?
fesoliveira 8y ago
"Why? What in Europe could have been so horrible that rational people would risk their lives and their children's lives to escape it? Socialism. It wasn't called socialism in those days, but that is what it was—unlimited government control and taxation of everything and everybody." That is Mises.org in a nutshell you.
bwb 8y ago
This person clearly has no understanding of history for why people left no europe, nor an understanding of the word socialism. Frustrating to read such BS.

31 points by gscott 8y ago

What is this, fox news? Socialism is most certainly not "unlimited government control and taxation of everything and everybody" and this is most certainly not what the colonists were escaping. This is a broad brush, romantic, red meat, not provable to anyone who is not willing to invest the time to read to confirm, but well written position similar to what what fox news frequently uses. Pilgrims wet not escaping socialism, they were escaping monarchy. This is so stupid.

tnzn 8y ago

>Socialism. It wasn't called socialism in those days, but that is what it was—unlimited government control and taxation of everything and everybody What ?! Seriously ? Taxes = sociamism ?

smithmayowa 8y ago

Stunning read particularly the part about colonist cutting and selling trees marked for the government to smugglers and feathering tax collectors. America has always been the wild west and Americans have always been wild folks, they just civilised themselves somewhat mostly due to the immense wealth they got after world war two, hence the surprise I get when people are surprised they do things like Iraq and the whole middle east expedition or when people are amazed at their strong gun rights.

i_am_nomad 8y ago
If only we Americans could be refined and civilized people like the British, the French, the Germans, the Indians or the Chinese, none of whom have any history of savagery or military aggression.
- kace91 8y ago
  As a Spaniard I feel left out.
  - i_am_nomad 8y ago
    Lo siento, mi hermano.
    - tarrinowser 8y ago
      Hey yeah, the Spanish Conquistadors were all up on Central and South America’s grill and Conquistadors translates literally to Conquerors. Why’d ya leave out Spanish Conquerors?

Blackstone4 8y ago

I feel like this is a low quality article. > Why? What in Europe could have been so horrible that rational people would risk their lives and their children's lives to escape it? > Socialism. It wasn't called socialism in those days, but that is what it was—unlimited government control and taxation of everything and everybody. There were no free markets and no free enterprise. Regardless of how honest or hard working a person was, it did him little good unless he was in bed with the government. I don't think this author understands what socialism is...from Wikipedia: "Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production."[0] At that period in time, economies were run for those at the top (similar to the 1%). It was centralized control i.e. not a system characterised by social ownership. I feel like there are some people who think that if a society does not have free markets then it must be socialist (i.e. !free markets == socialism). This is not the case. You wouldn't call the current Russia political system socialist.... it's authoritarian. I feel like the author is ignorant. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

frostburg 8y ago
It's written by and for parody libertarians / anarcho-capitalists. You shouldn't have any expectation of intellectual integrity.
lawlessone 8y ago
>This is what the American Revolution was all about—treason. And this treason was regarded as moral, ethical, and right in every way. Maybe it's a defence of Trump lol.

frostburg 8y ago

This is the outlet that published the notorious "Stateless in Somalia and loving it" propaganda piece.

dang 8y ago
On HN we judge things by the article, not by the outlet, and certainly not by the lousiest thing an outlet published. Our cupboards would be pretty bare if we did that.

tomohawk 8y ago

The crucial advance was not just in understanding that laws should govern a population, but that they should also govern government itself. And not only that, but that this would take hold in a population to the point where they would put everything at risk to fight for it. Hence, the US Constitution specifically enumerates the powers (rights) of government, and leaves the rights of the people unlimited.

mafm 8y ago
Your crucial advance began with the Magna Carta. The history of England is basically the story of how the Government of England became increasingly limited by the laws of England. (At least that was a central theme of David Hume's wildly popular 18th century "History of England".) And yeah, many people in England gave their lives fighting to progress that goal around the same time that the Americans declared independence.
- tomohawk 8y ago
  Absolutely. This tradition is one of the greatest legacies that ties together the Anglo-sphere.

mark_l_watson 8y ago

Great read. I credit the mises.org web site for convincing me to get out of the US stock market in 2007 and I generally like their Austrian Economics outlook. The article is full of humor, and I understand if other people in this thread don’t like it. It would be a dull world if we all had the same philosophy of life and business. I especially liked the opinions in the article around what motivated people to risk all to come to America.

bwb 8y ago
Big difference between opinion piece and someone pretending they know something about history.

Kaibeezy 8y ago

Anarchist roads, rutted and muddy, are what can expediently be cut through wilderness. Ideally, they lead to smooth and fast paved roads between and through populated places, paid for by fair contributions from all, for the benefit of all, at a reasonable price, as agreed to by the majority. When unfairness arises, whether in the manner of compelling contributions, distribution of benefit, unreasonable price, or without majority consent, that’ll be trouble. We’ve seen the process and results repeatedly before, so why can’t we do more about what’s happening now? Where’s the balance point? How do we find it and rest there instead of swinging wildly past it in both directions?

fesoliveira 8y ago

"Why? What in Europe could have been so horrible that rational people would risk their lives and their children's lives to escape it? Socialism. It wasn't called socialism in those days, but that is what it was—unlimited government control and taxation of everything and everybody." That is Mises.org in a nutshell you.

bwb 8y ago

This person clearly has no understanding of history for why people left no europe, nor an understanding of the word socialism. Frustrating to read such BS.