5 ms·

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 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)
        mindslight 1y ago
        That may be where you are coming from, but your original comment didn't contain anything beyond a simple smack down that is too-easily interpreted in a partisan manner.
        viridian 1y ago
        One can be immersed in the behavior of the spectacle while also opposed to it. Frankly, I'd say that applies frequently to most situationists and critical theorists I've interacted with, including myself. The fact that signposting "outgroup bad" is so psychologically rewarding, while nuanced discussions are more difficult, get less engagement from others, etc, is actually a critical reason we are where we are as a culture. This isn't meant as a defense of or attack on GuinansEyebrows, more a self reflection of my own, similar behavior.
- 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.

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)
        mindslight 1y ago
        That may be where you are coming from, but your original comment didn't contain anything beyond a simple smack down that is too-easily interpreted in a partisan manner.
        viridian 1y ago
        One can be immersed in the behavior of the spectacle while also opposed to it. Frankly, I'd say that applies frequently to most situationists and critical theorists I've interacted with, including myself. The fact that signposting "outgroup bad" is so psychologically rewarding, while nuanced discussions are more difficult, get less engagement from others, etc, is actually a critical reason we are where we are as a culture. This isn't meant as a defense of or attack on GuinansEyebrows, more a self reflection of my own, similar behavior.
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.