3 ms·

>"in exchange for a binding agreement that the legislature recognized their immunity to taxation." This must have been some time before the Civil War, when inc

>"in exchange for a binding agreement that the legislature recognized their immunity to taxation." This must have been some time before the Civil War, when income taxes were briefly enacted (and subsequently rescinded after the war) to pay for the war, or some time before World War I, when income taxes were again enacted (oestensibly to pay for the war), and subsequently "stuck around" this second time. Perhaps the taxation you mean was that of import tariffs, enacted oestensibly to pay for the Revolutionary War: "Responding to an urgent need for revenue following the American Revolutionary War, the First United States Congress passed, and President George Washington signed on July 4, the Tariff of 1789, which authorized the collection of duties on imports. Four weeks later, on July 31, the fifth act of Congress established the United States Customs Service and its ports of entry." (Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Customs_and_Border_Protection https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Customs_and_Border_Protec...) To me (as an amateur historian, and "not a very good one" at that!), it's amazing how much you find historical taxation -- connected to War. Incidentally, that history of commonality / "co-incidence" is shared by England/Great Britain -- and many other nations in their history as well. I believe that in the Roman Empire this same pattern emerges (as it also might have occured with the medieval church fighting the Crusades -- the so called "Holy War", except that "taxes" were called "tithes" back then) -- but I'd have to research those incidences further... Also, you might find the following interesting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Apocalypse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Apocalyps... >"as per its constitutional authority..." ...which occurs as consequence of, and is subordinate to, the consent of the governed -- which can be revoked by any given individual constituent, at any given time, for any given reason, or for no reason: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/7370/7370-h/7370-h.htm https://www.gutenberg.org/files/7370/7370-h/7370-h.htm If you really want to understand American Government and what it was set up to protect against -- then you must truly understand all of the historical ills of every preceeding historical government of every other nation on the face of the earth into antiquity (including, but not limited to: monarchies, tyrannies, mob rule, communist movements, etc.) Say it with me: CONSENT. OF. THE. GOVERNED.

shadowgovt 6y ago
The colonial government to which Mr Franklin was speaking was the government of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania as established by the power of the Crown, not a government structured around Locke's philosophy. It really is a quote that people drag out so frequently without understanding the context in which it was used. ;) That haven't been said, I believe you're misinterpreting Locke in this context. You seem to imply that every individual can dissent without consequence. That's not what Locke said; he said the government derives its power from consent to the governed, but he was relatively mute on what happens if somebody, having consented and, further, having even consented to a system where the majority guides the government, revokes that consent. A person who puts themselves outside of the interests of the rest of society and it declares they are no longer beholden to its laws simply puts themselves at risk of being steamrolled by society, because the needs of the many are going to outweigh the needs of the few. The theory of individual and even group attempts to be apart from the effects of the will of the consenting governed has been tried again and again in American history---Thoreau, the Civil War, even Typhoid Mary in a sense---and found wanting. The social contract is not lightly broken. If one breaks it without a plan for an alternative that can be at least as powerful as the previous arrangement, one will likely simply be consumed by that which one tried to leave behind. and for what it's worth, if we're trying to apply lessons from the past to the modern era... While there is unrest and people are gravely concerned, justifiably so, that those in authority have broken the social contract (especially regarding how America treats black Americans), the vast majority of Americans consent to being governed. Or was there a massive tax strike that nobody mentioned?
- peter_d_sherman 6y ago
  >"The colonial government to which Mr Franklin was speaking was the government of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania as established by the power of the Crown, not a government structured around Locke's philosophy. It really is a quote that people drag out so frequently without understanding the context in which it was used. ;)" Fair enough! >"That haven't been said, I believe you're misinterpreting Locke in this context. You seem to imply that every individual can dissent without consequence." There are consequences for everything in life (some good, some bad, some neutral -- depends on the individual viewpoint), that is true! But, I did not say that, nor did I imply that by what I said, although, I suppose one set of inferences could arrive at that conclusion -- but other sets of inferences would not. Elucidate the logic by which you believe I implied it; I will in turn elucidate you if I believe that your reasoning is sound, and I agree (by implication) or not (by faulty connecting logic). >"That's not what Locke said; he said the government derives its power from consent to the governed, but he was relatively mute on what happens if somebody, having consented and, further, having even consented to a system where the majority guides the government, revokes that consent." Well, let's start with the fundamentals... if a single individual revokes their consent -- does government stop functioning? No it does not! Beyond this, what we are discussing here is the nature of the social contract. Which is an absolutely fascinating subject matter! I could discuss this for days, weeks on end even! In order to understand this, we'd need to discuss what a contract is, in Law (and also the historical understanding that gives rise to the modern-day concept of contracts), what lawyers do with contracts, and what such thinkers as Thomas Hobbes have to say on the matter. So I invite you to have a private email discussion with me on the matter, if you so choose! (peter.d.sherman@gmail.com). >"A person who puts themselves outside of the interests of the rest of society and it declares they are no longer beholden to its laws simply puts themselves at risk of being steamrolled by society, because the needs of the many are going to outweigh the needs of the few." Look, I think you're a nice guy, I think you're very smart and well informed, and I'm sure you as a person have many virtues that if I knew you, I would be your friend, and I would praise them. But what you have said in this part of your response is complete and utter horseshit. Don't worry, I don't blame you for this. I blame our educational system, that in this day and age, doesn't exactly turn out Star Trek's Mr. Spock -- or Greek philosopher kings for that matter. If the education is defective, then so is the reasoning. What you mean to say here is "People who interfere with the rights of others -- put themselves at risk of having their rights interfered with". You can substitute "right" (which is a legal term by the way, but I use it in the context of its popular, not legal understanding) with "liberties", "freedoms", "abilities to have, do, and be" -- or whatever human ability you want. You see, there's no "Law" in that sentence. (Fun fact: A Law, or what you are calling "Laws" -- only come into play when a) Two or more parties get entangled (aka, "have a beef" / have a disagreement with one another) and b) These two or more parties cannot work things out on their own, and thus require courts, judges and lawyers -- to do so.) You show me anything that you think is "Law" -- and I will show you a series of Circumstances under which that so called "Law" does not or can not apply. A Law against Murder? You think that one's absolute? OK, so what about U.S. Soldiers stationed in foreign countries when they shoot enemy soldiers? That's not Murder -- that's "Protecting Freedom" you say? Well, I'll let you have that argument! But if that is your argument -- then you've also argued, equal-and-oppositely(!), that because a Law against Murder should not be applied to U.S. Soldiers -- that the Law is based on Circumstances, that Circumstances are more important than, and senior to, the Law! So which is it? Is it: a) Circumstance should have nothing to do with Law, Laws are absolute, and thus U.S. Soldiers in foreign countries, if they kill enemy soldiers are guilty of Murder, or b) The Law is subordinate to (and relative to) Circumstances, that is, the Circumstances surrounding a specific act or acts; thus the Law in itself, is not absolute, and less authoritative than Circumstances. Pick one and only one; You cannot have both of these at the same time, because that results in logical fallacy, that results in contradiction. Then tell me what your answer is, and THEN can we discuss Law, and subsequently what individual obligations are to it or aren't. >"The theory of individual and even group attempts to be apart from the effects of the will of the consenting governed has been tried again and again in American history---Thoreau, the Civil War, even Typhoid Mary in a sense---and found wanting." And yet, we are a country founded on the principles of wanting to get away from the previous government, the King of England... Also... the Constitution contains the idea of Freedom of Association -- the freedom to associate with anyone, anytime, for any reason. Well, that's like a cup that is half-full. You see, the other half of that cup is that Freedom Of Association -- also implies Freedom to Dissociate, that is, the Freedom to disengage from any previous associations -- since if you have Freedom Of Association, by default (by implication), you must equal-and-oppositely have the Freedom To Dissociate. They are opposite sides of the same coin. >"The social contract is not lightly broken. If one breaks it without a plan for an alternative that can be at least as powerful as the previous arrangement, one will likely simply be consumed by that which one tried to leave behind." What you have said here is highly abstract. Give a concrete example of this happening please. >"and for what it's worth, if we're trying to apply lessons from the past to the modern era... While there is unrest and people are gravely concerned, justifiably so, that those in authority have broken the social contract" Name two people in authority who have broken the social contract, and explain to me exactly how. >"(especially regarding how America treats black Americans)" How does America treat black Americans? I know I am exceedingly polite towards them. Also, why do you call them "black Americans" and not "Americans"? >, the vast majority of Americans consent to being governed. Most Americans are not highly educated in Law, which, if they could get it, would add a huge dimension to their understanding of today's Government, Courts, Legal Processes, Rights, etc., etc. >Or was there a massive tax strike that nobody mentioned?" Underneath our present-day democracy, there is in fact a Republic. Most people, short of some highly educated Lawyers (not all Lawyers, again, the fault of the educational system) -- do not truly understand this or its implications. The pieces are all there; but they've been fragmented; fractured; and scattered to the winds -- but they are all there in various books, in various documents, in various quotes, in various understandings -- they are all there. My question to you is a philosophical one -- what happens to a society, a free society -- when it violates one or more of its founding principles? (Also, how, over time, can a group or organization violate one or more of their founding principles?). What happens then? Well, we have Ancient Rome as an example... but most people, most historians understand Ancient Rome as a series of events, they don't understand it (and this is the extra dimension) as a series of psychologies; this psychological dimension to things would add a great deal of understanding; but we'd never understand it if we all we were concerned about was dates, places, leaders, wars, treaties and other events. Anyway, if you'd like to have a long philsophical discussion about any of these points, you can email me: peter.d.sherman@gmail.com

shadowgovt 6y ago

The colonial government to which Mr Franklin was speaking was the government of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania as established by the power of the Crown, not a government structured around Locke's philosophy. It really is a quote that people drag out so frequently without understanding the context in which it was used. ;) That haven't been said, I believe you're misinterpreting Locke in this context. You seem to imply that every individual can dissent without consequence. That's not what Locke said; he said the government derives its power from consent to the governed, but he was relatively mute on what happens if somebody, having consented and, further, having even consented to a system where the majority guides the government, revokes that consent. A person who puts themselves outside of the interests of the rest of society and it declares they are no longer beholden to its laws simply puts themselves at risk of being steamrolled by society, because the needs of the many are going to outweigh the needs of the few. The theory of individual and even group attempts to be apart from the effects of the will of the consenting governed has been tried again and again in American history---Thoreau, the Civil War, even Typhoid Mary in a sense---and found wanting. The social contract is not lightly broken. If one breaks it without a plan for an alternative that can be at least as powerful as the previous arrangement, one will likely simply be consumed by that which one tried to leave behind. and for what it's worth, if we're trying to apply lessons from the past to the modern era... While there is unrest and people are gravely concerned, justifiably so, that those in authority have broken the social contract (especially regarding how America treats black Americans), the vast majority of Americans consent to being governed. Or was there a massive tax strike that nobody mentioned?

peter_d_sherman 6y ago
>"The colonial government to which Mr Franklin was speaking was the government of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania as established by the power of the Crown, not a government structured around Locke's philosophy. It really is a quote that people drag out so frequently without understanding the context in which it was used. ;)" Fair enough! >"That haven't been said, I believe you're misinterpreting Locke in this context. You seem to imply that every individual can dissent without consequence." There are consequences for everything in life (some good, some bad, some neutral -- depends on the individual viewpoint), that is true! But, I did not say that, nor did I imply that by what I said, although, I suppose one set of inferences could arrive at that conclusion -- but other sets of inferences would not. Elucidate the logic by which you believe I implied it; I will in turn elucidate you if I believe that your reasoning is sound, and I agree (by implication) or not (by faulty connecting logic). >"That's not what Locke said; he said the government derives its power from consent to the governed, but he was relatively mute on what happens if somebody, having consented and, further, having even consented to a system where the majority guides the government, revokes that consent." Well, let's start with the fundamentals... if a single individual revokes their consent -- does government stop functioning? No it does not! Beyond this, what we are discussing here is the nature of the social contract. Which is an absolutely fascinating subject matter! I could discuss this for days, weeks on end even! In order to understand this, we'd need to discuss what a contract is, in Law (and also the historical understanding that gives rise to the modern-day concept of contracts), what lawyers do with contracts, and what such thinkers as Thomas Hobbes have to say on the matter. So I invite you to have a private email discussion with me on the matter, if you so choose! (peter.d.sherman@gmail.com). >"A person who puts themselves outside of the interests of the rest of society and it declares they are no longer beholden to its laws simply puts themselves at risk of being steamrolled by society, because the needs of the many are going to outweigh the needs of the few." Look, I think you're a nice guy, I think you're very smart and well informed, and I'm sure you as a person have many virtues that if I knew you, I would be your friend, and I would praise them. But what you have said in this part of your response is complete and utter horseshit. Don't worry, I don't blame you for this. I blame our educational system, that in this day and age, doesn't exactly turn out Star Trek's Mr. Spock -- or Greek philosopher kings for that matter. If the education is defective, then so is the reasoning. What you mean to say here is "People who interfere with the rights of others -- put themselves at risk of having their rights interfered with". You can substitute "right" (which is a legal term by the way, but I use it in the context of its popular, not legal understanding) with "liberties", "freedoms", "abilities to have, do, and be" -- or whatever human ability you want. You see, there's no "Law" in that sentence. (Fun fact: A Law, or what you are calling "Laws" -- only come into play when a) Two or more parties get entangled (aka, "have a beef" / have a disagreement with one another) and b) These two or more parties cannot work things out on their own, and thus require courts, judges and lawyers -- to do so.) You show me anything that you think is "Law" -- and I will show you a series of Circumstances under which that so called "Law" does not or can not apply. A Law against Murder? You think that one's absolute? OK, so what about U.S. Soldiers stationed in foreign countries when they shoot enemy soldiers? That's not Murder -- that's "Protecting Freedom" you say? Well, I'll let you have that argument! But if that is your argument -- then you've also argued, equal-and-oppositely(!), that because a Law against Murder should not be applied to U.S. Soldiers -- that the Law is based on Circumstances, that Circumstances are more important than, and senior to, the Law! So which is it? Is it: a) Circumstance should have nothing to do with Law, Laws are absolute, and thus U.S. Soldiers in foreign countries, if they kill enemy soldiers are guilty of Murder, or b) The Law is subordinate to (and relative to) Circumstances, that is, the Circumstances surrounding a specific act or acts; thus the Law in itself, is not absolute, and less authoritative than Circumstances. Pick one and only one; You cannot have both of these at the same time, because that results in logical fallacy, that results in contradiction. Then tell me what your answer is, and THEN can we discuss Law, and subsequently what individual obligations are to it or aren't. >"The theory of individual and even group attempts to be apart from the effects of the will of the consenting governed has been tried again and again in American history---Thoreau, the Civil War, even Typhoid Mary in a sense---and found wanting." And yet, we are a country founded on the principles of wanting to get away from the previous government, the King of England... Also... the Constitution contains the idea of Freedom of Association -- the freedom to associate with anyone, anytime, for any reason. Well, that's like a cup that is half-full. You see, the other half of that cup is that Freedom Of Association -- also implies Freedom to Dissociate, that is, the Freedom to disengage from any previous associations -- since if you have Freedom Of Association, by default (by implication), you must equal-and-oppositely have the Freedom To Dissociate. They are opposite sides of the same coin. >"The social contract is not lightly broken. If one breaks it without a plan for an alternative that can be at least as powerful as the previous arrangement, one will likely simply be consumed by that which one tried to leave behind." What you have said here is highly abstract. Give a concrete example of this happening please. >"and for what it's worth, if we're trying to apply lessons from the past to the modern era... While there is unrest and people are gravely concerned, justifiably so, that those in authority have broken the social contract" Name two people in authority who have broken the social contract, and explain to me exactly how. >"(especially regarding how America treats black Americans)" How does America treat black Americans? I know I am exceedingly polite towards them. Also, why do you call them "black Americans" and not "Americans"? >, the vast majority of Americans consent to being governed. Most Americans are not highly educated in Law, which, if they could get it, would add a huge dimension to their understanding of today's Government, Courts, Legal Processes, Rights, etc., etc. >Or was there a massive tax strike that nobody mentioned?" Underneath our present-day democracy, there is in fact a Republic. Most people, short of some highly educated Lawyers (not all Lawyers, again, the fault of the educational system) -- do not truly understand this or its implications. The pieces are all there; but they've been fragmented; fractured; and scattered to the winds -- but they are all there in various books, in various documents, in various quotes, in various understandings -- they are all there. My question to you is a philosophical one -- what happens to a society, a free society -- when it violates one or more of its founding principles? (Also, how, over time, can a group or organization violate one or more of their founding principles?). What happens then? Well, we have Ancient Rome as an example... but most people, most historians understand Ancient Rome as a series of events, they don't understand it (and this is the extra dimension) as a series of psychologies; this psychological dimension to things would add a great deal of understanding; but we'd never understand it if we all we were concerned about was dates, places, leaders, wars, treaties and other events. Anyway, if you'd like to have a long philsophical discussion about any of these points, you can email me: peter.d.sherman@gmail.com