5 ms·

Ofcom can fine 4chan all it wants, but without UK assets those penalties are unenforceable, they have no power here. This is why the US dropped tea into Boston

by net01 1y ago

Ofcom can fine 4chan all it wants, but without UK assets those penalties are unenforceable, they have no power here. This is why the US dropped tea into Boston to have it's own Freedom.

blibble 1y ago
> This is why the US dropped tea into Boston to have it's own Freedom. the 3% tariff on Chinese tea was seen as oppressive don't look at what has been imposed this year (without congressional approval)
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- zdragnar 1y ago
  The tariff was oppressive in large part because the colonies didn't have representation in Parliament and were allowed limited (and decreasing) local governance. The Stamp, Townshend and Intolerable Acts were a whole lot more than just "we don't wanna pay taxes".
  - doka_smoka 1y ago
    I don't feel represented on the national or international stage AT ALL. Maybe I'll stop paying mine.
    - aleph_minus_one 1y ago
      > I don't feel represented on the national or international stage AT ALL. Maybe I'll stop paying mine. Now gather a huge group of friends who are willing to fight for this cause (and for whose this cause is so important that they can accept ending in jail or even worse).
      - DeusExMachina 1y ago
        Be careful what you ask for. History has proven that such a group will exist at some point.
        mindslight 1y ago
        System's got that on lock by setting it up so the people most predisposed to fight the government are actually cheering on the new taxes. Information/policy/consent flowing the opposite way from how is commonly understood has been my critique of democracy for a long time, but the effect just keeps growing. Social media is a hell of a drug.
        GuinansEyebrows 1y ago
        > System's got that on lock by setting it up so the people most predisposed to fight the government are actually cheering on the new taxes more likely, proving that this group of people never actually believed in anything.
        mindslight 1y ago
        I don't see how that is a more useful model than what I said. Maybe for rallying people to oppose the current problems. But it feels like such preaching to the choir mainly serves to exacerbate the "culture war" that helps shut off people's thinking to begin with. So pushing that way might help win the immediate battle, but it also helps lose the overall war.
        GuinansEyebrows 1y ago
        i don't think it contributes to the culture war to recognize that most people are not truly engaged in a collective sense, and that we are trapped within a self-reproducing system that relies on that: "...the autocratic reign of the market economy which had acceded to an irresponsible sovereignty, and the totality of new techniques of government which accompanied this reign." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectacle_(critical_theory) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectacle_(critical_theory)
    - Gud 1y ago
      What you "feel" is irrelevant though? You have the option of voting.
  - _heimdall 1y ago
    A similar argument can be made against the tariffs though. US consumers will be paying the bulk of the tariffs through price increases. We do have representatives in Congress, they just weren't the ones imposing tariffs. edit: as fun as silent down votes are, it would be interesting to hear where you might disagree
    - aaomidi 1y ago
      I mean yes the American people should probably consider giving our current government the same taste. But they’re not going to do that because we’ve been trained to be complacent.
    - lenerdenator 1y ago
      Unfortunately the representatives in Congress gave the tariff power to the Presidency. Now, did they do that with the approval of the voters? Ostensibly, yes, but in reality, it's not that clear-cut. This would be more like if the Thirteen Colonies had MPs and those MPs still voted in favor of the Stamp Act, or they voted to delegate the power to tariff to someone with a severe personality disorder.
      - bigstrat2003 1y ago
        It infuriates me just how much members of Congress have abdicated their jobs and given power to the president to make unilateral decisions. I wonder if we need a constitutional amendment (not that we could get such a thing to pass in this day and age), because it is a complete perversion of how our government is supposed to work. For a long time now I've been banging the drum of "don't put power in the president's hands", because the downside has always been very clear to me: even if you trust the guy in office today, doesn't mean you will want the next guy to have that power. But people just don't care. They are quite happy to have unilateral power exercised by one man, because they don't bother to think through the consequences of such things.
        HankStallone 1y ago
        Congressmen have to get reelected, so over the years they've been glad to abdicate power to the executive, the judiciary, and the unelected bureaucracy. Anyone but themselves, so they didn't have to sign their names to the unpopular policies they wanted. They still got what the ruling class wanted, but indirectly, so it rarely threatened their incumbency. Whatever happened, they could tell the votes back home, "Sorry, we tried to pass/stop such-and-such, but we don't have any control over the president/courts/bureaucrats. Can't blame me." It worked pretty well as long as the ruling class were all pretty much on the same page about most things, with some "social issues" differences between the parties that they used for campaigning but never quite acted on. It works less well if different factions start competing and going against the status quo for real.
  - Elextric 1y ago
    Technically. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_representation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_representation
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - cma 1y ago
    These tariffs may have representation, but constitutionally not from the right representative. Congress has the authority and only delegated it to the president in limited circumstances that don't apply. Trump says the ones on China are imposed for fentanyl being shipped in by mail and other means, and within days of saying that pardoned the largest opiates by mail operator in US history, Ross Ulbricht.
- Amezarak 1y ago
  The precipitating event behind the Boston Tea Party was actually a reduction in taxation that made it possible for the East India Company to undercut both official colonial tea importers and also American tea smugglers.
  - lesuorac 1y ago
    And many of those tea importers/smugglers happened to be prominent figures in the future US government. A coup was just good business.
    - potato3732842 1y ago
      It was terrible business. They'd have all been way better off working with the dominant global and economic power than starting a new country. And that's before you average in all the ones who lost everything and/or died.
      - dijit 1y ago
        It was good business, and those men are immortalised in history. We should probably not forget that France gave nearly everything they had to the US to fund its revolution, what was a global power ended up in such an impoverished situation that it led to the French Revolution and ended the monarchy. Not a small amount of support, if you are at the receiving end - certainly smells like good business.
      - lesuorac 1y ago
        I dunno. Look at Musk who tried to work with the US President vs Trump who is the US president. Which one of them is gaining more?
      - tomjakubowski 1y ago
        "We had a good thing, you stupid son of a bitch! We had the King. We had a tea port. We had everything we needed, and it all ran like clockwork. You could've shut your mouth, smuggled tea and made as much money as you ever needed. It was perfect. But, no, you just had to blow it up. You and your pride and your ego! You just had to be the man. If you'd done your job, known your place, we'd all be fine right now."
- FergusArgyll 1y ago
  The target of the Boston Tea Party was the British implementation of the Tea Act of May 10, 1773, which allowed the East India Company to sell tea from China in the colonies without paying taxes apart from those imposed by the Townshend Acts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Tea_Party https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Tea_Party
- anikom15 1y ago
  [flagged]
- anywhichway 1y ago
  That's absurd. That doesn't pass the sniff test at all for being remotely true that people would react like that to only a 3 percent tax. I looked it up, and it was a 3 pence tax per pound. When tea was selling for 2 to 3 pence per pound. So yeah, a 100-150% tax combined with the fact that the East India Company was allowed to sell without paying the tax. That is very unjust and threatens their business a lot more than the tax alone.
mullingitover 1y ago
> This is why the US dropped tea into Boston to have it's own Freedom. (But primarily done to protect colonial smugglers' and merchants' businesses which were being undercut by the English tea that was still cheaper than theirs, even with the small tax.)

by net01 1y ago

Ofcom can fine 4chan all it wants, but without UK assets those penalties are unenforceable, they have no power here. This is why the US dropped tea into Boston to have it's own Freedom.

blibble 1y ago

> This is why the US dropped tea into Boston to have it's own Freedom. the 3% tariff on Chinese tea was seen as oppressive don't look at what has been imposed this year (without congressional approval)

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
zdragnar 1y ago
The tariff was oppressive in large part because the colonies didn't have representation in Parliament and were allowed limited (and decreasing) local governance. The Stamp, Townshend and Intolerable Acts were a whole lot more than just "we don't wanna pay taxes".
- doka_smoka 1y ago
  I don't feel represented on the national or international stage AT ALL. Maybe I'll stop paying mine.
  - aleph_minus_one 1y ago
    > I don't feel represented on the national or international stage AT ALL. Maybe I'll stop paying mine. Now gather a huge group of friends who are willing to fight for this cause (and for whose this cause is so important that they can accept ending in jail or even worse).
    - DeusExMachina 1y ago
      Be careful what you ask for. History has proven that such a group will exist at some point.
      - mindslight 1y ago
        System's got that on lock by setting it up so the people most predisposed to fight the government are actually cheering on the new taxes. Information/policy/consent flowing the opposite way from how is commonly understood has been my critique of democracy for a long time, but the effect just keeps growing. Social media is a hell of a drug.
        GuinansEyebrows 1y ago
        > System's got that on lock by setting it up so the people most predisposed to fight the government are actually cheering on the new taxes more likely, proving that this group of people never actually believed in anything.
        mindslight 1y ago
        I don't see how that is a more useful model than what I said. Maybe for rallying people to oppose the current problems. But it feels like such preaching to the choir mainly serves to exacerbate the "culture war" that helps shut off people's thinking to begin with. So pushing that way might help win the immediate battle, but it also helps lose the overall war.
        GuinansEyebrows 1y ago
        i don't think it contributes to the culture war to recognize that most people are not truly engaged in a collective sense, and that we are trapped within a self-reproducing system that relies on that: "...the autocratic reign of the market economy which had acceded to an irresponsible sovereignty, and the totality of new techniques of government which accompanied this reign." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectacle_(critical_theory) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectacle_(critical_theory)
  - Gud 1y ago
    What you "feel" is irrelevant though? You have the option of voting.
- _heimdall 1y ago
  A similar argument can be made against the tariffs though. US consumers will be paying the bulk of the tariffs through price increases. We do have representatives in Congress, they just weren't the ones imposing tariffs. edit: as fun as silent down votes are, it would be interesting to hear where you might disagree
  - aaomidi 1y ago
    I mean yes the American people should probably consider giving our current government the same taste. But they’re not going to do that because we’ve been trained to be complacent.
  - lenerdenator 1y ago
    Unfortunately the representatives in Congress gave the tariff power to the Presidency. Now, did they do that with the approval of the voters? Ostensibly, yes, but in reality, it's not that clear-cut. This would be more like if the Thirteen Colonies had MPs and those MPs still voted in favor of the Stamp Act, or they voted to delegate the power to tariff to someone with a severe personality disorder.
    - bigstrat2003 1y ago
      It infuriates me just how much members of Congress have abdicated their jobs and given power to the president to make unilateral decisions. I wonder if we need a constitutional amendment (not that we could get such a thing to pass in this day and age), because it is a complete perversion of how our government is supposed to work. For a long time now I've been banging the drum of "don't put power in the president's hands", because the downside has always been very clear to me: even if you trust the guy in office today, doesn't mean you will want the next guy to have that power. But people just don't care. They are quite happy to have unilateral power exercised by one man, because they don't bother to think through the consequences of such things.
      - HankStallone 1y ago
        Congressmen have to get reelected, so over the years they've been glad to abdicate power to the executive, the judiciary, and the unelected bureaucracy. Anyone but themselves, so they didn't have to sign their names to the unpopular policies they wanted. They still got what the ruling class wanted, but indirectly, so it rarely threatened their incumbency. Whatever happened, they could tell the votes back home, "Sorry, we tried to pass/stop such-and-such, but we don't have any control over the president/courts/bureaucrats. Can't blame me." It worked pretty well as long as the ruling class were all pretty much on the same page about most things, with some "social issues" differences between the parties that they used for campaigning but never quite acted on. It works less well if different factions start competing and going against the status quo for real.
- Elextric 1y ago
  Technically. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_representation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_representation
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- cma 1y ago
  These tariffs may have representation, but constitutionally not from the right representative. Congress has the authority and only delegated it to the president in limited circumstances that don't apply. Trump says the ones on China are imposed for fentanyl being shipped in by mail and other means, and within days of saying that pardoned the largest opiates by mail operator in US history, Ross Ulbricht.
Amezarak 1y ago
The precipitating event behind the Boston Tea Party was actually a reduction in taxation that made it possible for the East India Company to undercut both official colonial tea importers and also American tea smugglers.
- lesuorac 1y ago
  And many of those tea importers/smugglers happened to be prominent figures in the future US government. A coup was just good business.
  - potato3732842 1y ago
    It was terrible business. They'd have all been way better off working with the dominant global and economic power than starting a new country. And that's before you average in all the ones who lost everything and/or died.
    - dijit 1y ago
      It was good business, and those men are immortalised in history. We should probably not forget that France gave nearly everything they had to the US to fund its revolution, what was a global power ended up in such an impoverished situation that it led to the French Revolution and ended the monarchy. Not a small amount of support, if you are at the receiving end - certainly smells like good business.
    - lesuorac 1y ago
      I dunno. Look at Musk who tried to work with the US President vs Trump who is the US president. Which one of them is gaining more?
    - tomjakubowski 1y ago
      "We had a good thing, you stupid son of a bitch! We had the King. We had a tea port. We had everything we needed, and it all ran like clockwork. You could've shut your mouth, smuggled tea and made as much money as you ever needed. It was perfect. But, no, you just had to blow it up. You and your pride and your ego! You just had to be the man. If you'd done your job, known your place, we'd all be fine right now."
FergusArgyll 1y ago
The target of the Boston Tea Party was the British implementation of the Tea Act of May 10, 1773, which allowed the East India Company to sell tea from China in the colonies without paying taxes apart from those imposed by the Townshend Acts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Tea_Party https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Tea_Party
anikom15 1y ago
[flagged]
anywhichway 1y ago
That's absurd. That doesn't pass the sniff test at all for being remotely true that people would react like that to only a 3 percent tax. I looked it up, and it was a 3 pence tax per pound. When tea was selling for 2 to 3 pence per pound. So yeah, a 100-150% tax combined with the fact that the East India Company was allowed to sell without paying the tax. That is very unjust and threatens their business a lot more than the tax alone.

mullingitover 1y ago

> This is why the US dropped tea into Boston to have it's own Freedom. (But primarily done to protect colonial smugglers' and merchants' businesses which were being undercut by the English tea that was still cheaper than theirs, even with the small tax.)