|
Post by fredorbob on Nov 18, 2009 4:12:27 GMT -6
The Downside of the "Tea Party"mises.org/story/2435^^read^^ This is how an honest regressive views the real Boston Tea Party. The tea incoming to Boston from India was TAX FREE and the cheapest the colonists had seen in 70 years. So why did they "rebel"? Read. The regressives who hold "Tea Parties" today do it in direct opposition to the spirit of the original Boston Tea Party. Everything the regressives stand for, everything they believe, is directly 180 degrees opposite of history.
|
|
|
Post by fredorbob on Nov 18, 2009 4:13:36 GMT -6
Did I already create this topic somewhere else? ;D
|
|
|
Post by agito on Nov 18, 2009 12:49:42 GMT -6
that was an enlightening piece of history, as much as i hate the mises site, I admit it's a necessary stop on the path to enlightenment. i particularly took issue with this sentence:
"Of course, this was no more beneficence than Wal-Mart is a charity—the East India Company was badly overstocked with tea, and held a monopoly on legitimately imported tea granted, as all monopolies are, by the government in England."
Mises argues for free trade by sanctifying government enforced monopoly? That part of the article feels a little... "glossed over"
|
|
|
Post by judes on Nov 18, 2009 22:08:58 GMT -6
ummm that article was enlightening, count me among the ones who misunderstood the full story behind the Boston tea party. If that article is correct as to it's true nature, I now love what the tea party represents even more, and can only conclude the current tea party crowd is made up of mostly the wrong type of party goers for the original party theme. The person who wrote that article is sorely misguided though, because all the proof over the years since then backs the tea party's original protectionist measures as working and helping to build America up to a great industrial nation. All one needs to do is look at what eliminating such protectionist measures has brought us today and our current sorry state totally dependent on foreigners for everything and massive unemployment. And I agree agito, they defend free trade with the East India Company which was an abusive power, granted monopolistic privileges through the government, how absurd to base your proof of the benefits of free trade on this. pfft
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Nov 19, 2009 2:31:57 GMT -6
The anti-American, anti-protectionist screed by Joseph Potts was truly disgusting. This is typical of the mentality of many of the globalist, profits-at-all cost thinking of Libertarians.
I don't think all libertarians would agree with this, but many would. It's all about their need to be free to profiteer at their own countrymen's expense, regardless of how many Americans it hurts.
|
|
|
Post by fredorbob on Nov 19, 2009 7:27:51 GMT -6
that was an enlightening piece of history, as much as i hate the mises site, I admit it's a necessary stop on the path to enlightenment. i particularly took issue with this sentence: "Of course, this was no more beneficence than Wal-Mart is a charity—the East India Company was badly overstocked with tea, and held a monopoly on legitimately imported tea granted, as all monopolies are, by the government in England." Mises argues for free trade by sanctifying government enforced monopoly? That part of the article feels a little... "glossed over" That's because regressives think there is nothing wrong with monopolies, like OPEC.
|
|