|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 23 2012 @ 06:06 AM EDT |
You know what, it is interesting in what it shows the Americans appear to be
copying:
``In 1773, Britain's East India Company was sitting on large stocks of tea that
it could not sell in England. It was on the verge of bankruptcy. In an effort to
save it, the government passed the Tea Act of 1773,...''
Was the Act passed by the Government because the company was on the verge of
Bankruptcy; or did the company, on the verge of bankruptcy, get the government
to pass the law for it?
The subtle difference being that the former was the Government did it off its
own back, but the latter was because the Company told^H^H^H^H asked it to?
Not very good on history myself, but somewhere lingering round the back of my
mind is that the East India Company (or similar) had quite a few laws passed for
its (their) own benefit back then - something I seem to observe in USA today.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: jeremyg on Friday, August 24 2012 @ 04:44 AM EDT |
Is that the story they tell in England? Not entirely but we do get to
hear a bit more about how the various taxes were, originally, intended to raise
money to pay for the military costs involved in maintaining the colonies. That
side of things does seem to get drowned out by the "No taxation without
representation" side of the story in the US (not surprisingly). It also
appears that at least some people today believe that the taxes where unfair just
because they were taxes rather than them being unfair because those being taxed
had no voice in the body that imposed them. Ranting against "King George's
taxes" without mentioning the issue of representation does give the impression
of "ungrateful colonists who aren't prepared to help pay for the protection they
get" JeremyG [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|