Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

Baraka_Guru · 04-03-2011, 05:55 PM

Interesting. So as the history goes, Britain and the EIC sought to stop tax-evading tea smugglers via a tax break, and the response was the Boston Tea Party...because they didn't want to pay the tea tax either?

So what values can we encapsulate in the Boston Tea Party then? It doesn't seem to directly equate "no taxation without representation." Instead, it seems to be more about no taxation period. They didn't want to pay the tea tax.

So this tax....was this essentially a duty? It's not like tea was a local product or anything. The only place to get tea was elsewhere. The difference, then, is that this is a tax on a product: tea. This isn't a tax on individuals.

The current iteration of "tea party" values do differ. It's not a refusal to pay a duty on a popular beverage. It's, well...you know, personal. "I" pay too much tax; the government spends too much of "my" money. And lets throw in some constitutional fetishism while we're at it.

No, I think the current use of Boston Tea Party symbolism is mainly that---symbolism. I suppose it's the closest thing to "direct action" associated with "tax issues." To compare the two, I guess the similarity is in "not taking it anymore," where it = "that tax issue."

Because, you know, both "tea parties" are about tax issues; it's just that the issues are much different.

So the comparisons drawn between the two are quaint, but I can see now how it is misleading.

04-03-2011, 05:55 PM	#3 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	Interesting. So as the history goes, Britain and the EIC sought to stop tax-evading tea smugglers via a tax break, and the response was the Boston Tea Party...because they didn't want to pay the tea tax either? So what values can we encapsulate in the Boston Tea Party then? It doesn't seem to directly equate "no taxation without representation." Instead, it seems to be more about no taxation period. They didn't want to pay the tea tax. So this tax....was this essentially a duty? It's not like tea was a local product or anything. The only place to get tea was elsewhere. The difference, then, is that this is a tax on a product: tea. This isn't a tax on individuals. The current iteration of "tea party" values do differ. It's not a refusal to pay a duty on a popular beverage. It's, well...you know, personal. "I" pay too much tax; the government spends too much of "my" money. And lets throw in some constitutional fetishism while we're at it. No, I think the current use of Boston Tea Party symbolism is mainly that---symbolism. I suppose it's the closest thing to "direct action" associated with "tax issues." To compare the two, I guess the similarity is in "not taking it anymore," where it = "that tax issue." Because, you know, both "tea parties" are about tax issues; it's just that the issues are much different. So the comparisons drawn between the two are quaint, but I can see now how it is misleading. __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot Last edited by Baraka_Guru; 04-03-2011 at 05:59 PM..